Simpson v. Macomber’s Empirical Analysis
264 F. 913 · 1920
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 1941
4 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 In re Loving · First Nat. Bank v. State Nat. Bank · In re Goldberg · Scandinavian American Bank of Big Timber, Mont. v. Ellingson · In re Thompson
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Section 25a gives the right of appeal (subdivision 3) from a judgment allowing or rejecting a debt or claim of $509 or over. The time for prosecuting such, appeal is limited to 10 days after the rendition of the judgment appealed from. The question is presented here whether the appeal has been taken within the 10-da,y limitation. The primary order was made and entered on September 30, 1919. The appellant, having by oversight let the time go by, moved for a rehearing apparently for the only purpose of procuring the entry of the judgment as of a later date, so that the appeal could be taken in compliance with the statute. This latter order and judgment were entered November 24, 1919. The appeal was taken within 10 days from that date. The obvious purpose of the later order and judgment was to revive the right of the trustee to appeal. The entry itself indicates as much. An order so made is wholly ineffectual to revive such right. In re Berkebile (D. C.) 144 F. 574 ; In re Goldberg, 167 F. 808 , 93 C. C. A. 203 . In the case at bar, not' only was the appeal Bled long after the 10 days had expired after the entry of the original order, but even the motion for rehearing was filed after the expiration of the time.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bonner v. Potterf
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.