Cameron v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

142 federal appellate · 35 district · 11 state decisions

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

1. ““The object of the examination of the bankrupt and other witnesses to show the condition of the estate is to enable the court to discover its extent and whereabouts, and to come into possession of it, that the rights of creditors may be preserved.””

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sigman v. United States · Metheany v. United States

2. ““A court of bankruptcy may, upon application of any officer, bankrupt, or creditor, by order require any designated person, including tbe bankrupt and his wife, to appear in court or before a referee or the judge of any staté court, to be examined concerning the acts, conduct, or property of a bankrupt whose estate is in process of administration under this act. * * * ” 32 Stat. p. 79S, c. 487.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Prussian · In re Youroveta Home & Foreign Trade Co.

3. “. “We are of opinion that the estate was in process of administration at the time when the. examination before the commissioner was ordered and the testimony of Cameron given. This court has decided that the filing of the petition in bankruptcy operates to place the property of the alleged bankrupt in custodia legis and prevents any creditor from attaching.it ; and, although by the terms of the act the estate does not vest in the trustee until the date of the adjudication, it is placed at the time of the filing of the petition under the control of the court with a view to its ultimate distribution among creditors. Acme Harvester Co. v. Beekman Lumber Co., 222 U. S. 300 , 307 [ 32 Sup. Ct. 96 , 56 L. Ed. 208 ]. And see Mueller v. Nugent, 184 U. S. 1 , 14 [ 22 Sup. Ct. 269 , 46 L. Ed. 405 ]; Everett v. Judson, 228 U. S. 474 , 478, 479 [ 33 Sup. Ct. 568 , 57 L. Ed. 927 , 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 154 ], And this is true, notwithstanding, as contended by the petitioner, that, should the attempt to obtain an adjudication of bankruptcy fail upon the subsequent hearings, the receivership would necessarily be vacated and the property turned back to the alleged bankrupt.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rawlins v. Hall-Epps Clothing Co.