Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 127 F.2d 440 - Barlow v. Budge

Barlow v. Budge’s Empirical Analysis

127 F.2d 440 · 1942

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
states following
January 1995
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently January 1995

9 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

60194219501960197019801990decided

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

Relies on Pepper v. Litton · Twin-Lick Oil Company v. Marbury · Geddes v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co. · Sanford Fork & Tool Co. v. Howe Brown & Co. · Baldwin v. Canfield

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

  1. “As a practical matter, it is difficult to see in what way the informal manner in which the corporate affairs were handled prejudiced the rights of creditors. There is no claim that any creditor was deceived as to the nature of the bankrupt’s business, as to who was in charge of its affairs, or as to its financial condition. The books of account were properly kept and reflected the assets and liabilities of the bankrupt.... All that Budge and Rose did directly and informally, they could have done indirectly and formally. Whatever was done by the bankrupt in borrowing money from Budge was apparently known to and approved or fully acquiesced in by all of the three stockholders. The evidence does not justify an inference that Budge manipulated the affairs of the corporation for his own personal advantage. The inference which is justified by the evidence is that the advances which Budge made were made in good faith to enable the bankrupt to meet pressing obligations and to remain in business. The advances were made before the creditors, to whose claims it is now contended Budge’s claim should be subordinated, had become creditors.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.