Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 161 F.1d 260 - In re Friedman

In re Friedman’s Empirical Analysis

161 F. 260 · 1908

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
June 1984
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 9 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently June 1984

1 federal appellate · 9 district ·

90190819101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Mueller v. Nugent · In re Rosser · In re Baudouine · In re Friedman

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. ““The position now taken amounts to no more than to assert that a mere refusal to surrender constitutes an adverse holding in fact, and therefore an adverse claim when the petition was filed, and to that we cannot give our assent. But suppose that respondent had asserted that he had the right to possession by reason of a claim adverse to the bankrupt, the bankruptcy court had the power to ascertain whether any basis for such a claim actually existed at the time of the filing of the petition. The court would have been bound to enter upon that inquiry, and in doing so would have undoubtedly acted within its jurisdiction, while its conclusion might have been that an adverse claim, not merely colorable, but real even though fraudulent, and voidable, existed in fact, and so that it must decline to finally adjudicate on the merits.””
    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.