Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 262 F.1d 778 - In re Hudson

In re Hudson’s Empirical Analysis

262 F. 778 · 1920

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
January 1933
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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

  1. ““Congress would scarcely have provided that a debt or liability created by a given state of facts should be a ground for objecting to a discharge, and at the same time have excepted the debt so created from the discharge when granted. It is manifest that these two provisions, if so construed, would be inconsistent, because, if an obligation so created was excepted from the discharge when granted, it could hardly be a ground for objecting to the granting of the discharge, which would not cancel or release such debt or liability.””
    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.