In re Schulman’s Empirical Analysis
177 F. 191 · 1910
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1987 · most notably Ex parte Hudgings (1919), United States v. Griffin (1979)
16 federal appellate · 8 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 In re Schulman · In re Schulman
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Disingenuous and evasive as his testimony appears when read, it is obvious that the opportunity to `watch' the bankrupt gave the referee a very marked advantage in determining whether he was acting honestly. His answer `I don't remember,' and `What do you mean?' so often given might in some instances have been the result of a defective memory or an honest inability to understand. An appellate court may be unable to detect, under such conditions, the false from the true, the honest from the fraudulent, but any intelligent person, after observing the witness for hours on the stand could not be deceived as to his purpose. 13 "The testimony as it appears in the record evinces a deliberate purpose to conceal the truth and prevent the trustee from becoming possessed of facts which would lead to a recovery of the missing property. The witness was being asked regarding transactions directly within his knowledge and facts which he must have known. When, therefore, he answered repeatedly `I don't remember,' it is obvious that he was deliberately withholding information to which the trustee was entitled. In effect his attitude was one of defiance. He did not affirmatively tell the referee that he refused to disclose the facts which would enable the trustee to follow the property, although these facts were well known to him, but his conduct produced the same result as if he had stated his purpose openly.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Unless convinced that manifest error has been committed, this court should refrain from meddling with the administration of the estate which can safely he intrusted to the officers of the bankruptcy court who are familiar with tho local environment and the character and conduct of the parties. * * * An appellate court ijiay be unable to detect, under such conditions, the false from the true, the honest from the fraudulent; but any intelligent person, after observing the witness for hours on the stand, could not be deceived as to his purpose.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Oriel“* * * The referee, on the contrary, had an opportunity to see and hear the bankrupt and observe his manner while testifying, which is an inestimable advantage in cases of this character. The testimony of a witness may sound plausible when read afterwards from a printed book and yet his conduct on the stand may have been such that no one who heard him testify believed that he was telling the truth. * * *”
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.