Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 142 F.1d 68 - Samel v. Dodd

Samel v. Dodd’s Empirical Analysis

142 F. 68 · 1906

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
February 1948
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 14 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1948 · most notably Maggio v. Zeitz (1948), Kirsner v. Taliaferro (1912)

19 federal appellate · 14 district ·

12019061910192019301940decided

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 Boyd v. United States · Mueller v. Nugent · First National Bank of Chicago v. Chicago Title Trust Company · In re Rosser · Boyd v. Glucklich

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

  1. ““But the present proceeding is one of a summary nature, and is invoked for the purpose of bringing within the reach and control of the bankruptcy court specific property found to be in the possession of the bankrupt and by him unlawfully withheld. The order should describe the property with reasonable certainty in order to assure its identity, and the command of the court to the bankrupt should be to surrender the very property sought tobe recovered. In such cases the order to deliver should be based upon clear and convincing proof that the party charged has possession and control, of the property, since the penalty of disobedience is imprisonment for contempt. * * * “But it is not within the power of the court, in such a proceeding, to render judgment for the value of property ascertained to be in the possession of, and contumaciously withheld by, a bankrupt, and attach him for contempt upon his refusal to pay. Such procedure would approach dangerously near the line, if it did not overstep it, of imprisonment for debt.” (Italics ours.)”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The [bankrupt! act makes the amplest provision for punishing fraudulent conduct and false oaths on the part of the bankrupt. The fraudulent bankrupt gains nothing by being adjudged a bankrupt, but is punished criminally and denied a discharge. And his creditors lose none of their rights, for they may resort to all the remedies known to the law for the collection of their debts against the bankrupt, the same as though lie had never been adjudged a bankrupt. There is. therefore, no occasion for the exercise by the court of bankruptcy of any doubtful power of jurisdiction, either for the purpose of punishing the bankrupt or protecting his creditors.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““It follows unquestionably that an order imprisoning a bankrupt for contempt for failure to obey a decree to pay money or surrender goods into court is erroneous as matter of law, where the bankrupt by sworn answer denies that he has the money or the goods, and it does not appear clearly and affirmatively from the record, notwithstanding his denials, that he has the power to comply with the decree.””
    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.