Strom v. Peikes’s Empirical Analysis
123 F.2d 1003 · 1941
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently August 2018
6 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 1 U.S.C. § 1 (Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002) · 11 U.S.C. § 104 · 11 U.S.C. § 107
Relies on National Surety Co. v. Coriell · Snare & Triest Co. v. United States · In re Rouse, Hazard & Co. · City of Dallas v. Ryan · In re Bennett
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Reliance is placed, however, on Manly v. Hood, 4 Cir., 37 F.2d 212, 213 , where the court declined so to interpret § 64, sub. a (2), then § 64, sub. b(5). The argument was that § 1 had a qualification limiting definitions if ‘the same be inconsistent with the context.’ Because of the policy of the act in favoring wage earners, and because logically the three months should be dated from any insolvency proceeding, receivership, or assignment, the .court felt that it had a case of inconsistency with the context. Granting the strong-arguments of equity and liberality toward wage earners, nevertheless it seems difficult to say that the words ‘commencement of the proceeding’ are inconsistent with the context of § 64, sub. a(2), 11 U.S.C.A. § 104 , sub. a(2), if they mean ‘date when the petition was filed.’ At most they are inconsistent with a broad purpose of § 64, sub. a (2). But even this is not controlling, for they are consistent with the entire context of § 64 and the Bankruptcy Act as a whole. As-a general proposition, the priority section establishes a hierarchy of payment from the bankruptcy estate. To inject a date prior to bankruptcy is to confuse the bankruptcy estate with an earlier estate, such as that in the hands of an assignee. Displacement of a state insolvency proceeding by a bankruptcy proceeding has as part of its purpose the substitution of the bankruptcy rules of distribution. Holding these views, and with all deference, we are constrained to disagree with Ma”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“three months before the date of the commencement of the proceeding”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Ko-Ed Tavern
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.