Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 178 F.1d 385 - Clay v. Waters

Clay v. Waters’s Empirical Analysis

178 F. 385 · 1910

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
October 2006
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2006 · most notably Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. Johnson (1924), Lamb v. Cramer (1932)

22 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 state decisions

1901910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 · Fred Bardes v. First National Bank of Hawarden Iowa · Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co. · York Manufacturing Company v. Arthur Cassell J B · Bryan v. Louis Bernheimer

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

  1. ““* * * An adjudication in bankruptcy is a seizure by the court of bankruptcy and a transfer to that court of all property in the possession of the bankrupt at the time of the adjudication in which he has any interest. Thenceforth such property is a part of the trust estate in the legal custody of the court for the benefit of the creditors of the bankrupt and adverse claimants. (Citing numerous authorities.) “Any willful interference with any of this trust estate, any willful attempt to injure it, to withdraw it from the custody of the court, or to conceal it from the court or any of its officers whose duty it is to administer it, is a defiance of the power and an affront to the dignity of the court which may be punished by a judgment for contempt. * * *””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““But the property here in controversy was in the possession of the bankrupt when the petition was filed and when the adjudication was made, and it then passed within the jurisdiction of the District: Court below. The second, section of the Bankruptcy Law invests the District Court sitting in bankruptcy with power to ‘cause the estates of bankrupts to be collected, reduced to money and distributed and determine controversies in relation thereto except as otherwise provided,’ and the exception is of cases involving those controversies between trustees in bankruptcy and adverse claimants specified in section 23, which relate to property which was not in the possession of the bankrupt when the petition .for adjudication was filed and in which the defendants do not consent to suits in the District Courts. The District Court sitting in bankruptcy has jurisdiction to determine by summary proceedings, after a reasonable notice to claimants to present their claims to it, controversies between the trustee and adverse claimants over liens upon and the title and possession of (1) property in the possession of the bankrupt when the politlón in bankruptcy is filed, (2) property held by third parties for him, (3) property lawfully seized by the marshal as the bankrupt’s under clause 3 of section 2 of the Bankruptcy Law, and (4) property claimed hy the trustee which has been lawfully reduced to actual possession by the officers of the court. Such controversies are controversies in proceeding”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““But the property here in controversy was in the possession of, the bankrupt when the petition was filed and when the adjudication was made, and it then passed within the jurisdiction of the District Court below. The second section of the bankruptcy law invests the District Court sitting in bankruptcy with power to ‘(7) cause the estates of bankrupts to be collected, reduced to money and distributed and determine controversies in relation thereto except as otherwise provided,’ and the exception is of cases involving those controversies between trustees in bankruptcy and adverse claimants specified in section 23, which relate to property which was not in the possession of the bankrupt when the petition for adjudication was filed, and in which the defendants do not consent to suits in the District Courts. The District Court sitting in bankruptcy has jurisdiction to determine by sum-. mary proceedings, after a reasonable notice to claimants to present their claims to it, controversies between the trustee and adverse claimants over liens upon and the title and possession of (1) property in the possession of the bankrupt when the petition in bankruptcy is filed; (2) property held by third parties for him; (3) property lawfully seized by the marshal as the bankrupt’s under clause 3 of section 2 of the bankruptcy law'; and (4) property claimed by the trustee which has been lawfully reduced to actual possession by the officers of the court. Such controversies are controversies in pro”
    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.