Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 186 F.2d 525 - Prudence-Bonds Corp. v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co.

Prudence-Bonds Corp. v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co.’s Empirical Analysis

186 F.2d 525 · 1951

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
April 1999
most recently cited

7 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently April 1999

7 federal appellate ·

6019511960197019801990decided

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

Applies 11 U.S.C. § 501

Relies on North American Car Corp. v. Peerless Weighing & Vending Machine Corp. · Country Life Apartments, Inc. v. Buckley · In re Flatbush Ave.-Nevins St. Corp. · Clinton Trust Co. v. John H. Elliott Leather Co. · President & Directors of Manhattan Co. v. Kelby

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

  1. “* * * the court may never under the guise of `alteration' or `modification' substitute an entirely new `plan' in place of the original; although what is a line between a substitute and an `alteration' or a `modification' is necessarily left at large. * * * The question is one of discretion, though of a discretion which should be sparingly exercised, * * * unless the circumstances peremptorily demand it. * * * We cannot deny that the view which we now take may lead to abuse; it is often exceedingly difficult for a bankruptcy court to resist the importunities, usually unopposed, of those who wish to keep the `revived debtor' indefinitely beneath its aegis; and our review of a discretion, which we may think to have been unwisely exercised, is not a very effective remedy. We can do no more than declare, for whatever weight it may have, that we deem the long delay which so often occurs between the order of `confirmation' and the `final order' a major abuse, and that a judge who superintends such a proceeding should feel himself charged with an affirmative duty to insist upon its early conclusion.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “superintend and enforce the execution of the 'plan'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.