Thomas v. Taggart’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

77 federal appellate · 25 district · 29 state decisions

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

1. ““Tbe rule is generally recognized that if the title to property claimed is good as against the bankrupt and his creditors, at the time the trustee’s title accrued, the title does not pass and the property should be restored to its true owner; or, if the property has been sold, the proceeds of the sale takes the place of the property. Loveland on Bankruptcy (3d Ed.) § 152; Hewit v. Berlin Machine Works, 194 U. S. 296 , 24 Sup. Ct. 690 , 48 L. Ed. 986 ; York Mfg. Co. v. Cassell, 201 U. S. 344 , 26 Sup. Ct. 481 , 50 L. Ed. 782 .””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Walter A. Wood Co. v. Eubanks · Crucible Steel Co. of America v. Holt

2. ““In this claim the essential question is as to the effect of Hall’s proof of his claim in bankruptcy as a waiver of his right to recover the shares of stock covered by the receipt. We are of the opinion that, in view of the reservation just made, there was nothing in Hall’s conduct, amounting to an election to pursue his claim as a creditor in bankruptcy, which now prevents his recovery of the certificates of stock in question. It is true that he voted at the first meeting of the creditors on December 19. 1904. upon an informal ballot for trustee in bankruptcy, and at the formal election of trustees on December 21, 1904, Mr. Hall did not vote, though the referee finds that he participated actively at the meetings held for the election of trustees. We are of the opinion that the reservation of Hall evidenced his intention to hold on to whatever rights he had in his shares of stock, and there is nothing in his conduct which would preclude him, after he had discovered that the shares had been returned to the assignee in bankruptcy, from reclaiming them as his own property.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Jacob Berry & Co. · Frederick, Vietor & Achelis v. Amerman

3. ““They [the stocks'] were not the property of Berry & Company [the bankrupt], but were held as collateral to her [plaintiff’s] account, upon which she is not indebted to the broker. The certificates were returned to the trustees, who had no better right to them than the bankrupt. * * * If the property has been sold, the proceeds of sale takes the place of the property.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Beaver Boards Co. v. Imbrie & Co.