Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 165 F.1d 166 - Tumlin v. Bryan

Tumlin v. Bryan’s Empirical Analysis

165 F. 166 · 1908

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
November 1942
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1942 · most notably Cunningham v. Brown (1924), National City Bank v. Hotchkiss (1913)

13 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 state decisions

19019081910192019301940decided

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 Grant v. National Bank · Stucky v. Masonic Savings Bank · In re Meyer · Vaccaro v. Security Bank · Ludowici Roofing Tile Co. v. Pennsylvania Inst. for Instruction of the Blind

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

  1. ““Reasonable cause to believe that a preference was intended cannot be held to be proved by circumstances that would merely excite suspicion. And circumstances may seem suspicious after the bankruptcy occurs that would not appear unusual at the time of their occurrence, and would then have presented no ‘reasonable cause’ on which to found a belief of intended preference.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It is not shown what property was owned by the firm in July. 100(5, at the date of the payments, nor is the value of the property then owned by it proved, and, besides, we And no evidence showing what property was owned, by the individual members of the bankrupt firm in July, 1000.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The reasonable implication of the statute, it has been held, is that the debtor himself must have intended the preference. In re First Rational Bank, 155 Fed. 100 [ 84 C. C. A. 16 ]; Hardy v. Gray, 144 Fed. 922 [ 75 C. C. A. 562 ].””
    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.