Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 262 U.S. 91 - In Re Fuller et al

In Re Fuller et al’s Empirical Analysis

262 U.S. 91 · 1923

Citation profile

118
cited by 118 later decisions
8
cited 8 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
October 2000
most recently cited

40 federal appellate · 6 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 118 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2000 · most notably McCarthy v. Arndstein (1924), American Tobacco Co. v. United States (1944)

40 federal appellate · 6 district · 9 state decisions

420192319301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Perlman v. United States · Johnson v. United States · Wisconsin & Michigan Railway Co. v. Powers · William Peck Co v. Lowe · Federal Land Bank of New Orleans v. Crosland

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

  1. “"A man who becomes a bankrupt or who is brought into a bankruptcy court has no right to delay the legal transfer of the possession and title of any of his property to the officers appointed by law for its custody or for its disposition, on the ground that the transfer of such property will carry with it incriminating evidence against him. His duty and its possession pass from him by operation and due proceedings of law, and when control and possession have passed from him, he has no constitutional right to prevent its use for any legitimate purpose. His privilege secured to him by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution is that of refusing himself to produce, as incriminating evidence against him, anything which he owns or has in his possession and control, but his privilege in that respect to what was his and in his custody ceases on a transfer of the control and possession which takes place by legal proceedings and in pursuance of the rights of others, even though such transfer may bring the property into the ownership or control of one properly subject to subpoena duces tecum." (emphasis added) In re Fuller, 262 U.S. 91 -93-94, 43 S.Ct. 496, 497-98 (1923).”
    8 later decisions 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.