Keyser v. Wessel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““I agree with this conclusion, which accords with two previous decisions in this district. In re Gerry [D. C.] 7 Am. Bankr. Rep. 462, 112 Fed. 957 ; In re Klapholz [D. C.] 7 Am. Bankr. Rep. 703, 113 Fed. 1002 . It is certain that no apportionment of the $3,500 can be made with any degree of accuracy; for, while it is true that only $1,000 was bid for the license separately, and therefore it may be contended with some degree of plausibility that the remaining $2,500 was bid for the stock and fixtures, it may also be contended, and with equal plausibility, that, as only $144.61 was bid for the stock and fixtures separately, the license must have produced the balance of the $3,500. Clearly the two lots as an entirety were more valuable than when offered separately; but the excess of value cannot now be assigned to its proper source or sources. Probably each lot contributed something to the higher price, but it would be a mere guess to attempt to say how much. If the landlord had desired to object to the sale upon the ground that he had not received notice, his time for so doing was, at latest, when the petition for confirmation was presented, for of this, at least, he had knowledge, and he was actually present when the order was made. His acquiescence in the report and confirmation was a clear ratification of the sale in bulk, and a waiver of the failure to give him notice. The action of the referee in rejecting the claim is approved.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McFarlin v. McFarlin