In re Julius Bros.’s Empirical Analysis
217 F. 3 · 1914
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2004 · most notably National Archives & Records Administration v. Favish (2004), Ashcroft Attorney General v. American Civil Liberties Union et al. (2002)
15 federal appellate · 6 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 Stewart v. Dunham · Van Iderstine v. National Discount Co. · Coder v. Arts · Sabin v. Columbia Fuel Co. · Sargent v. Blake
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The intent to defraud is something distinct from the mere intent to delay or hinder. But there is no distinction between delaying and hindering. The statute must be construed according to its reasonable intent and object, ‘and by a reasonable construction only such hindrance and delay as will operate .as a fraud come within its operation.’ Bump on Fraudulent Conveyances (3d Ed.) p. 20. This author, after stating that the presence of intent is essential goes on to explain that: ‘The transfer must also be devised and •contrived of malice, fraud, covin, collusion, or guile.’ Id., p. 20.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Braus
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.