In re Shaffer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 3 district ·

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The contract was one of indemnity for loss of rent and other payments, “and would be broken only after, and so far as, rent had been lost and payments had been made. * * * At the time of the adjudication the'claim in this case was contingent, first, upon the determination of the lease by the lessor for breach of the covenant; and, second, upon a subsequent loss of rent by the lessor. If the lessor permitted the lease to continue, or if the rent subsequently obtained by him equalled or exceeded that provided in the lease, the claim would not arise. * * * The provisions of the act of 1898 concerning the proof and allowance of contingent claims differ materially from those contained in the acts of 1841 and 1867. * * * Even under the broad provisions of the act of 1867 above referred to, it was held- that a provision in a lease that the lessors might re-enter and relet the premises at the risk of the lessees, who should remain liable for the rent, and be credited with the sums actually realized, did not give rise to a provable contingent claim. Ex parte Lake, 2 Low. 544 , Fed. Oas. No. 7,991. The provision above quoted of- the lease here in question, though not identical with that in Ex parte Lake, yet resembles it so closely as to be essentially similar. If the contingent claim arising in Ex parte Lake could not be proved under the act of 1867, it is clear that the contingent claim arising in this ease cannot be proved under the act of 1898.’.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Roth & Appel

2. ““So, where the covenant is that the landlord may re-enter and the tenant shall be liable for damages on account of the premises remaining unleased or leased at a lower rent for the remainder of the term, the lessor cannot prove his damages (in bankruptcy) for breach of the covenant; for the liability is contingent not only upon re-entry but upon there being a loss and the latter could not be reaseertained until the end of the term or until a re-letting at a reduced rent.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Service Appliance Co.