Weidhorn v. Levy’s Empirical Analysis
253 U.S. 268 · 1920
Citation profile
109 federal appellate · 28 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 227 later decisions (21 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2016 · most notably Taubel-Scott-Kitzmiller Co. v. Fox (1924), Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. Johnson (1924)
109 federal appellate · 28 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedIn re Weidhorn (from First Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Mueller v. Nugent · Fred Bardes v. First National Bank of Hawarden Iowa · Studley v. Boylston National Bank · Louisville Trust Company v. Leonard Comingor · Hewit v. Berlin Machine Works
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 227 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“not in any sense a separate court, nor endowed with any independent judicial authority”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““There may be controversies arising in the course of bankruptcy proceedings that are so far connected with those proceedings as to be in effect a part of them and capable of summary disposition by the referee under the general order of reference, although because of their nature or because involving a distinct and separable issue they may be reviewable, under the sections cited, by appeal rather than by petition to revise. Hewit v. Berlin Machine Works, 194 U. S. 296 , 300; Knapp v. Milwaukee Trust Co., 216 U. S. 545 , 553. Thus, if the property were in the custody of the bankruptcy court or its offices;, any controversy raised by an adverse claimant setting up a title to or lien upon-it might be determined on summary proceedings in the bankruptcy court, and would fall within the jurisdiction of the referee. White v. Schloerb, 178 U. S. 542 , 546; Mueller v. Nugent, 184 U. S. 1 , 13. But in the present instance the controversy related to property not in the possession or control of the court or of the bankrupt, or any one representing him at the time of petition filed, and not in the court’s custody at the time of the controversy, but in the actual possession of the bankrupt’s brother under an adverse claim of ownership based upon conveyances made more than four months before the institution of the proceedings in bankruptcy.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““By Act .Tunc 25, 1910, c. 412, § 7, 36 St,at. 838, 840, section 23b was further amended, so as to confer jurisdiction upon the courts of bankruptcy without consent of the proposed defendant in suits for the recovery of property under section 70e. The present suit, being of this nature, might, have been brotight in the District Court, or it might have been brought in a state court having concurrent jurisdiction under section 70e as amended.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harden v. Petritz
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.