Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 262 F.1d 918 - Lane v. Equitable Trust Co.

Lane v. Equitable Trust Co.’s Empirical Analysis

262 F. 918 · 1919

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
May 1940
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently May 1940

5 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

801919192019301940decided

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 Taylor v. Mayo · Harrison v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad · Barron v. Burnside · Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. Guardian Trust Company · Seymour v. Freer

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

  1. ““It cannot be said, because the stockholder in the old corporation thus acquired stock in the new, that a conclusive pre sumption, or any presumption at all, arises that the property was worth more than the price it sold for at foreclosure sale and more than the mortgage debt. In the opinion in Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Guardian Trust Co., 240 U.S. [166], 178, 36 S.Ct. [334], 337, 60 L.Ed. 579 , reference' is made to the fact ‘that reorganization plans often would fail if the old stockholders could not be induced to come in and contribute some fresh money,’ and the court further says, in that opinion, ‘that the necessity of such arrangements should lead courts to avoid artificial scruples.’ * * * “There is no testimony in the record to show that the property, which passed under the foreclosure decree was worth more than the price it sold for. Appellant relies upon the plan of reorganization alone to sustain his contention. In our opinion that is not sufficient.””
    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.