Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 249 U.S. 174 - City of Richmond v. Bird

City of Richmond v. Bird’s Empirical Analysis

249 U.S. 174 · 1919

Citation profile

197
cited by 197 later decisions
29
cited 29 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
July 2008
most recently cited

55 federal appellate · 44 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 197 later decisions (29 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2008 · most notably Dewsnup v. Timm (1992), Taubel-Scott-Kitzmiller Co. v. Fox (1924)

55 federal appellate · 44 district · 14 state decisions

6301919192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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

reviewedBird v. City of Richmond (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on New Jersey v. Anderson · New Jersey v. Lovell · Jackson Coal & Coke Co. v. Line · Bird v. City of Richmond

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

  1. ““104. Debts which have priority “(a) The debts to have priority, in advance of the payment of dividends to creditors, and to be paid in full out of bankrupt estates, and the order of payment, shall be (1) * * * (expenses of administration); (2) wages * * * not to exceed $600 to each claimant, which have been earned within three months before the date of the commencement of the proceeding, due to workmen, servants, clerks, or traveling or city salesmen on salary or commission basis, whole or part time, whether or not selling exclusively for the bankrupt; * * * (8) where the confirmation of an arrangement or wage-earner plan or the bankrupt’s discharge has been refused, revoked, or set aside upon the objection and through the efforts and at the cost and expense of one or more creditors, or, where through the efforts and at the cost and expense of one or more creditors, evidence shall have been adduced resulting in the conviction of any person of an offense under chapter 9 of Title 18, the reasonable costs and expenses of such creditors in obtaining such refusal, revocation, or setting aside, or in adducing such evidence; (4) taxes legally due and owing by the bankrupt to the United States or any State or any subdivision thereof: * * * and (5) debts owing to any person, including the United States, who by the laws of the United States is entitled to priority, and rent owing to a landlord who is entitled to priority by applicable State law: Provided, however, That such priority f”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Section 64a directs that taxes be paid in advance of dividends to creditors; and ‘dividend’ as commonly used throughout the act means partial payment to general creditors.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A]nd it appears that the city of Peters-burg had a right of distress against the property assessed with taxes in its favor, which the city might have exercised before the taxes were returned delinquent, or the property upon which they were assessed had passed into the hands of subsequent purchasers, and thereby secured a lien therefor, but these rights were never exercised.”
    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.