Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 228 U.S. 695 - Francis v. McNeal

Francis v. McNeal’s Empirical Analysis

228 U.S. 695 · 1913

Citation profile

296
cited by 296 later decisions
16
cited 16 times by the Supreme Court
18
states following
November 1990
most recently cited

107 federal appellate · 45 district · 44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 296 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1990 · most notably Liberty Nat Bank of Roanoke Va v. Bear (1924), Liberty National Bank v. Bear (1928)

107 federal appellate · 45 district · 44 state decisions — followed in 18 states

1000191319201930194019501960197019801990decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedFrancis v. McNeal (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on In re Meyer · Vaccaro v. Security Bank · In re Bertenshaw · Tumlin v. Bryan

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

  1. ““But tbe fact remains as true as ever that partnership debts are debts of the members of the firm, and that the individual liability of the members is not collateral like that of a surety, but primary and direct, whatever priorities there may be in the marshaling of assets. * * * Therefore ordinarily it would be impossible that a firm should be insolvent while the members of it remained able to pay its debts.””
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““No doubt these clauses taken together recognize the firm as an entity for certain purposes, the most important of which, after all, is the old rule as to the prior claim of partnership debts on partnership assets and that of individual debts upon the individual estate.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““On the other hand, it would be an anomaly to allow proceeding’s in bankruptcy against joint debtors, from some of whom, at any time before, pending, or after the proceeding, the debt could be collected in full. If such proceedings were allowed, it would be a further anomaly not to distribute all the partnership assets. Yet the individual estate, after paying private debts, is part of those assets so far as needed. Section of [Comp. St. 1916, § 9.“)89]. Finally, it would be a third incongruity to grant a discharge in such a case from the debt considered as joint, hut to leave the same persons liable for it considered as several. We say the same persons, for, however much the difference between firm and member under the statute bo dwelt upon, the firm remains at common law a group of men, and will be dealt with as such in the ordinary courts for use in which the discharge is granted.””
    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.