Magnus Harmonica Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
233 F.2d 803 · 1956
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently June 1994 · most notably Aboussie Bros. Construction Co. v. United Missouri Bank of Kirkwood (In Re Aboussie Bros. Construction Co.) (1981), Page v. First National Bank of MaryLand (In Re Page) (1982)
4 federal appellate · 1 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 11 U.S.C. § 501 · 28 U.S.C. § 2283
Relies on Callaway v. Benton · In re Nine North Church Street, Inc. · Weber v. Diversey Bldg. Corp.
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.
“... It may be granted that this suit against the Magnus defendants may have an indirect repercussion in matters involved in the bankruptcy proceedings. It is suggested, for instance, that Finn Mag-nus has reversionary rights to certain patents now licensed to the corporation and if a creditor got hold of those rights it would greatly embarrass the reorganization. Of course, that same difficulty would be presented if a tort claimant sued Magnus for damages involved in an automobile accident and sought to get these patent rights to collect a judgment. It is true, also, that a surety has rights against the principal debtor. If Finn Magnus and Elsie Magnus are compelled to pay a creditor who sues in a state court on a suretyship obligation entered into for the benefit of the corporation, they will have rights against the corporation. These the bankruptcy court can handle in due course if the question arises to be answered.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.”
1 later decision 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.