Ginsberg v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
170 F.2d 1 · 1948
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently July 2000 · most notably St. Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance (1979), United States v. City of Miami (1981)
25 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Freshman v. Atkins · Bluthenthal v. Jones · Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Carlson · Bacon v. Buffalo Cold Storage Co. · Gulf Refining Co. of La. v. Norvell
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In Freshman v. Atkins, 269 U.S. 121 , 46 S.Ct. 41 , 70 L.Ed. 193 , the Supreme Court said: “‘A proceeding in bankruptcy has the characteristics of a suit.’ “By analogy, it follows therefore that an order of discharge has the characteristics of a judgment in a court of law and unless otherwise provided by statute is as to its finality controlled by the same principles that control judgments in courts of law or equity. “Appellant asserts that at the time the discharge in the second bankruptcy proceeding was before the court, it' should have taken judicial notice of the prior proceedings in the same court and should have refused to discharge this claim. It is, of course, well settled that a court takes judicial notice of its own records but that does not mean that it has them actually in mind when they are pertinent in a subsequent proceeding or that failing to have them in mind and failing to act with relation thereto will make its judgment void. It is still the duty of one who relies on such preceding records to call the court’s attention thereto, and he is not relieved therefrom because of the principle that courts take judicial notice of their records. Failure to note them in such case merely leads to an erroneous judgment in case the preceding records would require a different result. The judgment of the court in such cases, however, is not void. “Neither Freshman v. Atkins, supra, nor In re Warnock, D.C., 239 F. 779 , upon which appellant relies, are authority for the pro”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Gross
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.