Fahs v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis
224 F.2d 387 · 1955
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2023 · most notably Raleigh v. Illinois Department of Revenue (2000), In the Matter of Mobile Steel Company, Debtor. Elaine E. Benjamin v. Lester Y. Diamond, as Trustee in Bankruptcy for Mobile Steel, Inc. (1977)
42 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions
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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 23
Relies on Pepper v. Litton · D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance · Vanston Bondholders Protective Committee v. Green · Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford · Auten v. Auten
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]ith respect to the question of usury, it may be stated as a well-established rule that a provision in a contract for the payment of interest will be held valid in most states if it is permitted by the law of the place of contracting, the place of performance, or any other place with which the contract has any substantial connection.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he Vanston case seems to us to establish a rule only for the distribution of a bankrupt’s assets. It did not hold that such a claim was void, but only that the claimant should not participate in the distribution of assets until all claims superior in conscience and fairness were paid.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The majority opinion [in Vanston ] may be reconciled with [the concurrence's] unquestionably correct principles only if it is regarded, as we regard it, as not declaring the obligation (regardless of validity under state law) void, but merely as subordinating it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.