In re Epstein’s Empirical Analysis
206 F. 568 · 1913
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2002 · most notably Maggio v. Zeitz (1948), Oriel v. Russell (1929)
18 federal appellate · 9 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
Relies on In re Marks · In re Sax · Cummings v. Synnott · In re Cummings · In re Cummings
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ “Where [confinement for civil contempt] has failed [to produce compliance], and where a reasonable interval of time has supplied the previous defect in the evidence, and has made sufficiently certain what was doubtful before, namely, the bankrupt’s inability to obey the order, he has always been released, and I need hardly say that he would always have the right to be released, as soon as the fact becomes clear that he can not obey.’ ””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“' “In the present cbntroversy (which is only in the first stage), I have considered the evidence, and approve the findings and order of the referee. But I think it desirable to modify tlie order slightly by striking out tbe words, ‘of the value of $28,686.34,’ and by striking out also the words, ‘and still withholds.’ And, as it is also desirable to fix another time within which the order is to be obeyed, I substitute July 25, 1913, for ‘forthwith.’ Thus modified, the order is affirmed.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Epstein v. Steinfeld · In re Elias““And now, to wit, July 21, 1913, in accordance with the opinion and order of court filed July 14, 1913, it is hereby ordered that the said A. Epstein, the bankrupt, do deliver to Abraham Steinfeld, trustee of the estate of A. Epstein, 3,061 dozen waists, 8,013% yards and 10,750 5/12 dozen trimmings, on or before July 25, 1913, which property the said bankrupt had in his possession at the time of the filing of the petition against him, and which he withheld from his said trustee.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Epstein v. Steinfeld
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.