Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 240 U.S. 642 - Fairbanks Steam Shovel Company v. Wills, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Federal Contracting Company

Fairbanks Steam Shovel Company v. Wills, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Federal Contracting Company’s Empirical Analysis

240 U.S. 642 · 1915

Citation profile

373
cited by 373 later decisions
15
cited 15 times by the Supreme Court
13
states following
January 1996
most recently cited

153 federal appellate · 65 district · 50 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 373 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1996 · most notably Stoll v. Gottlieb (1938), Taubel-Scott-Kitzmiller Co. v. Fox (1924)

153 federal appellate · 65 district · 50 state decisions — followed in 13 states

1100191519201930194019501960197019801990decided

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

reviewedFairbanks Steam Shovel Co. v. Wills (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Ex parte Schollenberger · Acme Harvester Company v. Beekman Lumber Company · Everett v. Judson · Galveston Ry Co v. Gonzales

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

  1. ““A corporation cannot change its residence or its citizenship. It can have its legal home only at the place where it is located by or under the authority of its charter; but it may by its agents transact business anywhere.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It is objected by appellant that a determination that the bankrupt corporation had its principal place of business and therefore its residence in Cook county, which is in the northern district, shows at the same time that the United States District Court for the southern district of Illinois had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding in bankruptcy under § 2 of the bankruptcy act, and hence no jurisdiction over the present controversy. (See Harris v. First Nat’l Bank, 216 U.S. 382 , 30 S.Ct. 296 , 54 L.Ed. 528 ) As to this, the circuit court of appeals correctly held that appellant, by answering and making defense upon the merits, consented to the jurisdiction, * *”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The Circuit Court of Appeals held, affirming the district court, that the residence of the bankrupt was in Chicago, which is in Cook county, and therefore the mortgage, having never been properly acknowledged or recorded, was invalid as against the trustee in bankruptcy.””
    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.