Majestic Radio and Television Corporation v. Franklin’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently March 2002
1 district · 1 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 11 U.S.C. § 107 · 11 U.S.C. § 108 · 11 U.S.C. § 110
Relies on United States v. Sherwood · Fred Bardes v. First National Bank of Hawarden Iowa · Cline v. Kaplan · Alexander v. Hillman · The Inter-State National Bank of Kansas City v. Frank Luther, Trustee, Matter of Garden Grain & Seed Company, Inc., Bankrupt
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The trustees insist that by filing his proof of claim in the Bankruptcy Court for summary disposition Franklin has, by implication, consented to that court’s summary jurisdiction for summary adjudication of any setoff or counterclaim raised against him. Many cases are cited by the trustees in which courts have held that filing a proof of claim in a Bankruptcy Court constitutes consent to be sued in that court on counterclaims arising out of the same transaction. Columbia Foundry Co. v. Lochner, 4 Cir., 179 F.2d 630 , 14 A. L. R.2d 1349; Chase National Bank of City of New York v. Lyford, 2 Cir., 147 F.2d 273 ; Florance v. Kresge, 4 Cir., 93 F.2d 784 . But no case has been cited, nor have we found any, in which it has been held that a Bankruptcy Court has acquired such jurisdiction of a setoff or counterclaim because the counter-defendant had filed a proof of claim arising out of a completely different subject matter. The trustees must concede that the alleged cause of action they seek to have adjudicated in the Bankruptcy Court does not arise from any of the transactions upon which Franklin’s claim is based. “It is obvious that filing a claim in a Bankruptcy Court is an implied consent to summary adjudication by that court of any counterclaims based upon the subject matter of that claim. A litigant could hardly claim a recovery on the basis of a certain fact situation without permitting the court to decide all of the legal consequences of that situation. No party can invite s”
4 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.