Negin v. Salomon’s Empirical Analysis
151 F.2d 112 · 1945
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently February 1985
4 federal appellate ·
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. § 107
Relies on Lockwood v. Exchange Bank · Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Hall · Stein v. Bostian · Charnesky v. Urban · In re Coddington
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the question is to be treated as one of intent, it is certainly not true that an ineffective transfer is a surrender of the transferror’s exemption. It does indeed show an intent to surrender the exemption in favor of that particular creditor, but of no one else. For example, in the case at bar, the bank forced the bankrupt to surrender his exemption pro tanto, but it would be altogether untrue to impute to him any purpose to surrender it in favor of his creditors generally. If that was the result, in fact, it was not because he meant to do so; but because the law imposed it as a consequence, willy nilly. The question is one of state law which determines the scope of the exemption and which the Bankruptcy Act recognizes. “ * * * The law does not concern itself with the debtor’s purposes; it gives him the exemption to use or to abuse, as he wills, subject only to its not being used to pre'vent that distribution which the Bankruptcy Act demands.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“There can he no doubt that the bankrupt’s interest in the fund was exempt from his creditors under the laws of New York. Subdivision 7 of section 200 of the New York Insurance Law, Consol. Laws c. 28, and section B3-50.0 of the Administrative Code of New York City, establish the exemption, and subdivision (1) of section 186 of the New York Insurance Law extends it not only to the bankrupt, but to any “beneficiary.” »***»*» There is equally little substance in the plaintiff’s argument that, because the bankrupt retained power to change his wife as beneficiary, the fund had ceased to be exempt.”
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.