Mueller v. Nugent’s Empirical Analysis
184 U.S. 1 · 1902
Citation profile
427 federal appellate · 355 district · 92 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,184 later decisions (64 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2016 · most notably Bank of Marin v. England (1966), Isaacs v. Hobbs Tie & Timber Co. (1931)
427 federal appellate · 355 district · 92 state decisions — followed in 29 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedMueller v. Nugent (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Fred Bardes v. First National Bank of Hawarden Iowa · Bryan v. Louis Bernheimer · White v. Schloerb · Bank v. Sherman
Cited together with Louisville Trust Company v. Leonard Comingor · Bryan v. Louis Bernheimer · Fred Bardes v. First National Bank of Hawarden Iowa · Acme Harvester Company v. Beekman Lumber Company · May v. Henderson
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 1,184 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is as true of the present law as it was of that of 1867 that the filing of the petition is a caveat to all the world and in effect an attachment and injunction (Bank v. Sherman, 101 U. S. 403 [ 25 L. Ed. 866 ]), and on adjudication title to the bankrupt’s property became vested in the trustee (sections 70, 21e, Act July 1, 1898, 30 Stat. 565 , 552, c. 541 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 3451, 3431]), with actual or constructive possession, and placed in the custody of the bankruptcy court.””
21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘But suppose that respondent had asserted that he had the right to possession by reason of a claim adverse to the bankrupt. The bankruptcy court had the power to ascertain whether any basis for such claim actually existed at the time of the filing of the petition. The court would then have been bound to enter the inquiry, and in so doing would have undoubtedly acted within its jurisdiction, while its conclusion might have been that an adverse claim, not merely color-able, but real, even though fraudulent and voidable, existed in fact, and so that it must decline to finally adjudicate on the merits. If it erred in its rulings either way, its action would be subject to review.’”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Tune · In re Muncie Pulp Co.““The bankruptcy court would be helpless, indeed, if the bare refusal to turn over could conclusively operate to drive the trustee to an action to recover as for an indebtedness or a conversion, or to proceedings in chancery, at the risk of the accompaniments of delay, complication, and expense, intended to be avoided by the simpler methods of the bankrupt law.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Moody v. Cole · In re Farrell
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.