In re Markham’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 1984
2 federal appellate ·
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
Relies on Katchen v. Landy · Thompson v. Magnolia Petroleum Co. · Katchen v. Landy · Bailey v. Baker Ice Machine Co. · Ex parte Davis
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Next it is necessary to consider whether this transfer, so ‘suffered by such debtor’ enabled appellee to obtain a greater percentage of its debt than some other creditor of the same class, in contravention of § 60 of the Act. Appellee contends that the ‘class’ referred to in § 60, sub. a includes only creditors holding claims arising from contracts of conditional sale, and not unsecured creditors of the bankrupt. We do not agree. While ‘class’ is not expressly defined in the Bankruptcy Act, it appears that the general purpose of § 60 was not only to enable the trustee in bankruptcy to strike down ‘secret liens’, but also to require prompt perfection of security interests in order to provide timely and, adequate notice to other creditors. . . . Manifestly, if conditional vendors were the only creditors to be included within the ‘class’ in question here, those purposes would be largely defeated.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Furthermore, the effect of this ‘transfer,’ if upheld, will be to enable the creditor, Lowe’s, to obtain a greater proportion of its debt than some other creditors of the same class. By creditors of the same class it is meant that the creditor must gain advantage over some or all of the creditors in its class as set forth in § 64 relating to priorities. All creditors other than those classified in § 64 are general creditors and belong to the same class, whether secured or unsecured. Glessner v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., supra. After the execution and before the filing of the contract Lowe’s was an unsecured creditor and by filing the agreement beyond the grace period sought to gain an advantage over the other unsecured creditors of the bankrupt.””
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.