Schmidt v. Esquire, Inc. Schmidt v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, Inc. Schmidt v. Crowell-Collier Pub. Co’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “* * * Esquire, Inc., is a corporation foreign to the State of Indiana and is not licensed nor admitted to do business there. It publishes the Esquire and Coronet magazines, which are available in Indiana either through subscription or at the newsstand. These magazines are printed in Chicago and are mailed directly from there to Indiana subscribers. They are placed on newsstands in Indiana by the Curtis Circulation Company, an independent corporation which purchases the magazines from Esquire and effects distribution through independent wholesale organizations. Esquire has no office of any kind in Indiana, and it has no employees or agents there to gather material for publication, nor to solicit advertising, subscriptions or newsstand sales. 37 "Under these facts, we do not see how it can seriously be contended that Esquire was amenable to suit in Indiana. * * * Obviously, the necessary contacts with the state are absent here.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 172 F. Supp. 615 - Insull v. New York World-Telegram Corporation · Samuel Insull v. New York, World-Telegram Corporation, a New York Corporation

2. ““It is true, as a general principle of law, that a trustee in bankruptcy may abandon onerous or unprofitable assets. * * * It is likewise certain that title to abandoned assets thereupon revests in the bankrupt. * * * It is not so certain just what action by the trustee is necessary to constitute an abandonment. There is no universally applied formula which he is required to follow, and whether abandonment has occurred in a particular case is usually a question of fact. * * * The trustee may expressly declare his in tent to abandon, Sessions v. Romadka, 145 U.S. 29 , 12 S.Ct. 799 , 36 L. Ed. 609 , while in some cases a mere failure by the trustee to administer property of which he has knowledge has been held sufficient. * * * “It is generally assumed that an •order of the bankruptcy court is not requisite to the abandonment of property by the trustee. However, it is essential to recognize that it is the court which administers the estate through its officer, the trustee, who is always subject to the court’s •control.” (The Court held that since the bankruptcy court had adopted a rule requiring the approval of the court before abandonment of property, the trustee could not abandon a claim of the bankrupt in the absence of a court order.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hill v. Larcon Company

3. “If the corporation becomes insolvent, and a receiver of all its estate and effects is appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction, the right to enforce this and all other rights of property of the corporation vests in the receiver and he is the proper party to bring suit, and, if he does not himself sue, should properly be made a defendant to any suit by stockholders in the right of the corporation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Franklin National Bank