Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 134 F.2d 839 - Witter v. Nikolas

Witter v. Nikolas’s Empirical Analysis

134 F.2d 839 · 1943

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
July 2001
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently July 2001

5 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

601943195019601970198019902000decided

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 11 U.S.C. § 501

Relies on Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Forty-One Thirty-Six Wilcox Bldg. Corp. · Harris v. Zion's Savings Bank & Trust Co. · Life Ass'n of America v. Fassett · Pancoe v. Southman · In re Storck Lumber Co.

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

  1. ““Whatever may be the validity of the first contention of the appellant Witter, it seems to us his second contention is valid. The decree of August 27, 1937, purported to foe final in all respects, and reserved jurisdiction only for the period of the extension of the indebtedness; and this reservation of jurisdiction was only for the purpose of supervising the procedure to carry out the court’s decree. It reserved no jurisdiction to entertain a further reorganization proceeding. True, the agreement of extension entered into with the indenture trustee and made a part of the decree of August 27, 1937, provided a plan that was to be put into effect if the debtor should default, but that plan is not the one sought to be promulgated and approved. An entirely new and different proceeding is contemplated. The petition of December 5, 1941, was a new proceeding and not a continuation of the proceeding instituted July 23, 1936.””
    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.