Chatz v. Freeman’s Empirical Analysis
204 F.2d 764 · 1953
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently March 1998 · most notably Roth v. Bank of the Commonwealth (1978), System Operations, Inc. v. Scientific Games Development Corp. (1977)
21 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
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. § 107
Relies on Yakus v. United States · Cline v. Kaplan · Doeskin Products, Inc. v. United Paper Co. · Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Lustron Corp. · Magidson v. Duggan
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.
“"To us, the rule seems plain, definite and unmistakable. There is nothing ambiguous about it. "We conclude that the trial court committed error at issuing the temporary restraining order without providing for security as required by rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. * *"”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““To hold that the trustee as a prerequisite to his right to proceed must give a bond, as required by Rule 65(c), is to seriously impinge not only upon his statutory duty [to collect the assets of the bankrupt’s estate] but that of the bankruptcy court as well. Such a result is calculated to have a paralyzing effect upon the plan which Congress has promulgated for the administration of bankruptcy estates.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““No restraining order or preliminary injunction shall issue except upon the giving of security by the applicant, in such sum as the court deems proper, for the payment of such costs, damages, and reasonable attorneys fees as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained; * *”
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.