In re Marks’s Empirical Analysis
176 F. 1018 · 1910
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1987
4 federal appellate · 8 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 In re Stavrahn · American Trust Co. v. Wallis · In re Marks
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The question for decision is whether the bankrupt should be committed to prispn for failure to comply with the order of June 24th; and upon this question the brief of the trustee’s counsel concedes that: “ ‘All the cases are practically harmonious in the declaration that, if the court is convinced that the bankrupt is unable to comply with the order, he should not be committed for contempt. Without the physical ability to comply, there can be no contempt.’ “Unquestionably that is the rule in this circuit. The Court of Appeals approved it in Trust Co. v. Wallis, 11 Am. Bankr. Rep. 360, 126 Fed. 464 , 61 C. C. A. 342 , and there are decisions elsewhere to the same effect. It will be observed that the present case differs from those which involved the preliminary question whether the referee or the District Court should make an order on the bankrupt to pay money or deliver goods. Here that point has been passed. It has been finally decided that in February, 1908, the bankrupt had in his possession or under his control the sum of $3,000 belonging to hi» estate in bankruptcy; and it only remains to inquire whether he is now able to pay. In this proceeding the court will not re-examine the question whether the order should ever have been made — either at all, or in the particular amount iixed by the referee. The trustee has therefore an unimpeachable right to the money specified in the order, and presumptively the bankrupt is able to pay it; but the admission must nevertheless be ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Cummings
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.