Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 164 F.2d 316 - In re Stanley Engineering Corp.

In re Stanley Engineering Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

164 F.2d 316 · 1947

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
3
states following
December 2010
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently December 2010 · most notably Kiersted v. Hadden (1952), Food Barn Stores Inc Four Corporation v. Food Barn Stores Inc (1997)

15 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

13019471950196019701980199020002010decided

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. § 110 · 11 U.S.C. § 501

Relies on Graffam v. Burgess · Pewabic Mining Co. v. Mason · Ballentyne v. Smith · In re Burr Mfg. & Supply Co. · Sturgiss v. Corbin

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

  1. “(a) there was fraud, unfairness or mistake in the conduct of the sale; or (b) the price brought at the sale was so grossly inadequate as to shock the conscience of the court and raise a presumption of fraud, unfairness or mistake.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ * * * Real and personal property shall, when practicable, be sold subject to the approval of the court. It shall not be sold otherwise than subject to the approval of the court for less than 75 per centum of its appraised value.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Applying the long-established legal principles enunciated in the cases cited to the facts in the instant case, it is plain that there was no justification for the bankruptcy court's failure to confirm the Galman bid made at the public sale and that it committed an abuse of discretion in failing to do so.”
    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.