In re Farrell’s Empirical Analysis
176 F. 505 · 1910
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1978
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
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 · Josiah Coder v. William Arts · York Manufacturing Company v. Arthur Cassell J B · Louisville Trust Company v. Leonard Comingor · Randolph v. Scruggs
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the argument of the counsel of the defendant in error, the position is taken that the Bankrupt Act suspends the operation of the act of Ohio regulating the mode of administering assignments for the benefit of creditors, treating the latter as an insolvent law of the State. The answer is, that the statute of Ohio is not an insolvent law in any proper sense of the term. It does not compel, or in terms even authorize, assignments: it assumes that such instruments were conveyances previously known, and only prescribes a mode by which the trust created shall be enforced. It provides for the security of the creditors by exacting a bond from the trustees for the discharge of their duties; it requires them to file statements showing what they have done with the property; and affords in various ways the means of compelling .them to carry out the purposes of the conveyance. There is nothing in the act resembling an insolvent law.. It does not discharge the insolvent from arrest or imprisonment: it leaves his afier-acquired property liable to his creditors precisely as though no assignment had been made. The provisions for enforcing a trust are substantially such as a court of chancery would apply in the absence of any statutory provision. The assignment in this case must, therefore, be regarded as though the statute of Ohio, to which reference is made, had no existence. There is an insolvent law in that State;' but the assignment in question was not made in pursuance of any of its ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stellwagen v. Clum
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.