Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 130 F.1d 670 - Pratt v. Bothe

Pratt v. Bothe’s Empirical Analysis

130 F. 670 · 1904

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
August 1987
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 6 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1987 · most notably Re James B Wood and Jethro P Hendersons (1908), Conrad v. Pender (1933)

13 federal appellate · 6 district ·

90190419101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Randolph v. Scruggs · In re Kross · Furth v. Stahl · Cunningham v. German Ins. Bank

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

  1. ““It would rather seem that Congress, engaged, as many signs indicate, in guarding the assets of those in contemplation of bankruptey, to the end that they might be brought without unnecessary expenditure to the hands of the trustee for distribution to creditors, while it would not deny to the debtor the right to employ and pay for legal assistance in his affairs during that critical period, yet proposed a restraint upon that privilege by requiring that such payment should be reasonable in amount — in short, proposed to apply to the incipient stage of bankruptcy the provident economy which it sought to apply to the administration of the bankrupt estate. It may have been thought that there was the same reason for such restraint at that stage of affairs as subsequently. And it is to be observed that the transaction would not become the subject of revision unless bankruptcy ensued.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Upon the construction which we think should be given to section 60d, there having been no petition of the trustee or any creditor that the court should inquire into the reasonableness of the amount of the compensation agreed to be paid by the debtor, we think the claim of the petitioner for charges incurred before the commencement of the bankruptcy proceedings should have been allowed at the sum of 8241.75, less the sum of 8150 admitted to have been paid, which would leave a balance of 891-75. This, of course, does not include the 837.50 allowed by the judge under section 64b. As the rights of the parties are governed by the special provisions of the statute relating to the subject, no question of preference by reason of the payments arises.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “It would be anomalous that the debtor, by preconcert with his attorney, could defeat that provision by an agreement for a benefit to accrue to the bankrupt after the proceedings should be inaugurated, and make the compensation therefor a privileged claim. By section 64b, the law provides for compensation to an attorney who assists the bankrupt in performing the duties imposed upon him. But this is done for the purpose of facilitating the proceedings, and for the benefit of the estate. It is not done in recognition of any contract obligation of the bankrupt.”
    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.