Helms v. Holmes’s Empirical Analysis
129 F.2d 263 · 1942
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 5 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Zwick v. Freeman (1967), Tippitt v. Wood (1944)
22 federal appellate · 5 district · 18 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 28 U.S.C. § 377
Relies on Local Loan Co. v. Hunt · Continental Illinois Nat Bank Trust Co of Chicago v. Chicago R I & P Ry Co · Williams v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · Toucey v. New York Life Insurance · Steelman v. All Continent Corp.
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"A discharge in bankruptcy is neither a payment nor an extinguishment of a debt, nor does it free the bankrupt from all traces of the debt as though it had never been incurred. It is merely a bar to the enforcement of a discharged debt by legal proceedings. It is a complete and valid defense to the enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation, provided it is properly pleaded; but it neither destroys the debt nor supplants the moral obligation to pay."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is probable that this modern; view of the right of a bankruptcy-court to protect by injunction the-effect of a discharge in bankruptcy-has been inspired by the necessity-of dealing with manifest injustices-that have arisen rather than from any essential error in -the theory of the earlier cases. The average bankrupt is a layman who has been advised that a discharge in bankruptcy releases him from his debts and who has faith in the dignity, the force and effect of a decree of a federal court. He has surrendered his property and has no means to defend himself against further litigation. It has become a custom for greedy creditors to take advantage of this situation by ignoring the bankruptcy proceedings and the order of discharge and suing on their debts in the state courts, hoping that the bankrupt, because of his ignorance and his faith in his order of discharge or because he is unable to employ counsel, will fail to appear and plead the discharge or otherwise defend. And unfortunately this frequently happens. Usually these suits are brought before inferior state courts, such as justices of the peace, many of whom are laymen; and even when the bankrupt appears and pleads his discharge these justices, without legal training or experience in interpretation of the Bankruptcy Act, undertake to pass upon the effect of the discharge as affecting the particular debts— usually reaching erroneous conclusions and usually adverse to the bankrupt. Every court which deals with any con”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“it seems clear that there is imposed on the bankruptcy court the responsibility and the right to exercise its powers to insure that the [Bankruptcy Code's] purpose is really accomplished.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Ayodele
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.