Mintzer v. Arthur L. Wright & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
263 F.2d 823 · 1959
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc. v. Dolman (1964), Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Fore River Railway Co (1988)
9 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 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.
Relationships
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Lion Bonding & Surety Co. v. Karatz · Scott v. Neely
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Nor is the threat of insolvency posed by the aggregate of the claims against defendant reason for appointment of a receiver. A receivership will not increase the assets of defendant available to satisfy whatever judgments the plaintiffs may ultimately recover. . A receiver will not be appointed where it will do no good.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“appointment of a receiver is an equitable remedy of rather drastic nature”
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.