Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 144 F.1d 956 - In re Stern

In re Stern’s Empirical Analysis

144 F. 956 · 1906

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
June 2007
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently June 2007

3 federal appellate · 2 district ·

3019061910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Tiffany v. Boatman's Institution · In re Lewensohn · Chatfield v. O'Dwyer · Wheelock v. . Lee · In re Kellogg

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

  1. ““In respect of opposing the allowance of claims, find moving for their re' consideration after they have been allowed, the trastee .is not bound to comply with every request preferred by objecting creditors, irrespective of its merits; nor is he clothed with absolute discretion to refuse. As the representative of the estate, he is bound to exercise his judgment and to act for the best interests of all concerned but subject to the supervising power of the referee and the district judge. He does not act judicially, but only administratively, and, if he refuses to oppose a claim or to move for its reconsideration when he ought to do so, he may be compelled to act or to penult the objecting creditors to act in his name” — citing Chatfield v. O’Dwyer, supra, and In re Lewensohn, supra.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““In passing the order, now sought to be reviewed, the learned District Judge omitted a duty of supervision which cannot be put aside, and accorded to the action of the trustee a measure of consideration to which it is not entitled. Particularly is it apparent that the trustee's action was accorded undue consideration, when it is considered that from the inception of these proceedings he was represented and presumably advised by counsel who was also representing the creditor whose claim was challenged. Of course, this ought not to have been, no matter what may have been the belief of counsel respecting its propriety.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““That the trustee is in a position to know or ascertain the facts, and his determination of such a matter will not be controlled or interfered with at the instance of others, who have no right to interpose such objection or plea.””
    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.