Schwartz v. Mills’s Empirical Analysis
192 F.2d 727 · 1951
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently December 2009 · most notably Benjamin D. And Madeline Prentice Gilbert v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1957), Kraft Foods Co. v. Commissioner (1956)
13 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 Pepper v. Litton · Markham v. Cabell · Taylor v. Standard Gas & Electric Co. · International Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty · Cabell v. Markham
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Some of the older cases do speak in terms of a detailed statement, compiled ‘with meticulous care;’ of the consideration for the claim. See cases cited in 3 Collier on Bankruptcy 127, 128, 14th Ed.1941. Without considering whether or not such exacting requirements can have any real meaning in the day-to-day realities of creditors’ meetings, we think the better rule is that no error will lie if there was reasonable ground for the allowance. See In re Rosenfeld-Goldman Co., D.C.Mass., 228 F. 921 . Hence a Proof of Claim should be held to comply with the requirement for statement of the consideration if the creditors and trustees are thereby supplied with enough information as to the circumstances giving rise to the debt to be able to test and pass on its validity, legality, and substantial accuracy.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It does not appear that the petitioning creditors * * * were actually harmed or misled by the succinctness of the statement. Any deficiency in knowledge was in fact supplied during the creditors’ meeting. Schneider [president of the bankrupt] testified to his personal knowledge of loans * * * [and] that the company books showed the bankrupt owed claimant approximately $93,-000 * * *. In addition there was offered the report of accountants for the creditors’ committee showing the exact amount claimed as disclosed”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Since a trustee should not owe his election to those whom he must sue for restoration of the bankrupt’s estate, In re Stowe, D.C.N.D.Cal., 235 F. 463 ; * * *” At page 730,”
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.