Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 182 F.1d 799 - In re Meier

In re Meier’s Empirical Analysis

182 F. 799 · 1910

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
May 1957
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 6 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 1957

4 federal appellate · 6 district ·

4019101920193019401950decided

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 · Schweer v. Brown

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

  1. “"Tt appears without dispute that on June 0, 1900. about a week before the filing of the petition in bankruptcy, the petitioner as treasurer of the bankrupt corporation received from the National Bank of Commerce, St, Louis. $12.500 in money, the property of said corporation; and on .Tune 12th. 88.750 more as the proceeds of the sale of the remainder of its assets. The night before the petition in bankruptcy was filed, the petitioner left St. Louis, and did not return until the fall of the year following. Upon the hearing before the referee he not only failed to account for the money so received by him, but refused to answer all qustions asked him relative to its disposition upon the ground, as stated by him. ‘that his answers might tend to incriminate him.’ His counsel asked of him but one question. which is: ‘Have you any property in your possession of the Meier China & Glass Company?’ He answered, ‘No, sir.’ This is the only showing he has seen fit to make of the disposition of over $29,000 in money of the bankrupt corporation so received by him as its treasurer within a few days prior to its bankruptcy. That the petitioner received the money of the corporation as stated is not disputed, and the only thing said in support of the petition to revise is that there is no presumption that the petitioner had this money or any part of it hi his possession when the order requiring him to turn over $12,500 thereof to the trustee was made. But. the settled rule is that, when properly”
    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.