Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 213 F.1d 335 - Smith v. Thompson

Smith v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

213 F. 335 · 1914

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
February 1943
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 5 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently February 1943

3 federal appellate · 5 district ·

401914192019301940decided

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 Friedrich · In re Kane · Burke v. Guarantee Title & Trust Co. · In re Andrews & Simonds · In re Hargraves

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

  1. ““In every court the administration of an exemption law should comport with the beneficent spirit that prompted its enactment. A court of equity especially should not attempt to defeat the exemption by niceties in practice. It should be helpful to those whose condition requires them to invoke it. The exemption in question here was not of described articles, but was generally of personal property up to a maximum value out of a larger mass. The substance under the statute was the value, not the particular character of the items. The trustee came into possession of the whole, and it was his duty to set apart the exempt portion. Bankruptcy Aet July 1, 1898,'e. 541, § 47a, 30 Stat. 557 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3438 [Comp. St. § 9631]). Even if the bankrupt should have specified, we see no substantial objection to his leaving it to the trustee. Had the bankrupt set out the items and valued them, the trustee would still have supervised the valuation. However regarded, the matter is a little detail of administration, which should not defeat the claim for exemption, plainly made and asserted.””
    3 later decisions 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.