In Re Brassel’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1984
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 104 · 29 U.S.C. § 151 (§ 1 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on McKey v. Paradise · In Re Paradise Catering Corporation
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If contributions to a fund by an employer are to be construed as ‘wages’ and as covered by the provisions of Section 64, sub a (2) of the Act, its purpose of protection would be greatly weakened by present day conditions. A contribution of even a small percentage of the gross weekly payroll of a great number of employers would exceed the amount of $000 even in a single week. “The ultimate contention here however is one of priority. Liberality of construction of the term ‘wages’ does not justify a nullification of the language of the statute which grants priority only to ‘wages * * * due to workmen’.- The employers’ contribution here is never due to the employee. He may not enforce the employers’ liability therefor. The employee never had an individual or assignable proprietory interest in the contribution or to the fund of which the contribution became a part. The discretion of the trustee in the administration of the fund is final and conclusive. The contributions here may be entirely exhausted by the expense of administration or by benefits allotted to union members possessing union seniority who never have been employed by a contributing employer. Here there is no claim of an'assignment by the employees. It. was not the intention of the section to afford priority protection to entire strangers. The claim is not entitled to priority.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“in Section 64, sub. a(2) of the Bankruptcy Act, so as to include payments made by an employer to a Welfare Fund under a collective bargaining agreement, should be left to Congressional action through an amendment to the Act. To support that view he cites what the New York State Legislature did in 1952, in amending Section 22 of the Debtor and Creditor Law, McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 12 to include in the definition of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.