Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 183 F.1d 338 - In re Lineberry

In re Lineberry’s Empirical Analysis

183 F. 338 · 1910

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
April 1934
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 3 district ·

Relationships

Relies on Mallin v. Wenham · In re Home Discount Co. · In re West · Stott v. Franey · Leitch v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.

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

  1. ““ The discharge in bankruptcy operated to discharge these obligations as of the date of the adjudication, so that the obligations were discharged before the wages intended as security were in existence. The law does not continue an obligation in order that there may be a lien, but only does so because there is one. The effect of the discharge upon the prospective liens was the same as though the debts had been paid before the assigned wages were earned. The wages earned after the adjudication became the property of the bankrupt clear of the claims of all creditors.””
    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.