Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 268 U.S. 111 - May v. Henderson

May v. Henderson’s Empirical Analysis

268 U.S. 111 · 1925

Citation profile

548
cited by 548 later decisions
33
cited 33 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
May 2007
most recently cited

241 federal appellate · 81 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 548 later decisions (33 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2007 · most notably Harris v. United States (1947), Katchen v. Landy (1966)

241 federal appellate · 81 district · 16 state decisions

1990192519301940195019601970198019902000decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Mueller v. Nugent · Taubel-Scott-Kitzmiller Co. v. Fox · Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. Johnson · Acme Harvester Company v. Beekman Lumber Company

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

  1. ““Nor is it any answer to such a proceeding that the diverted assets are no longer under the control of the assignees .... The duty of a fiduciary to account for property entrusted to his care is fulfilled by delivery of the property, but if he has put it out of his power to deliver it, he may nevertheless be compelled to account for its worth, [citation omitted]. He is subject to the summary order of the Bankruptcy Court to restore the property to the bankrupt’s estate.” 30”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Courts of bankruptcy do not permit themselves to be ousted of jurisdiction by the mere assertion of an adverse claim. The court has jurisdiction to inquire into the claim for the purpose of ascertaining whether the summary remedy is an appropriate one within the principles of decision here stated. * * * It may disregard the assertion that the claim is adverse if on the undisputed facts it appears to be merely col-orable.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “property held or acquired by others for account of the bankrupt is subject to a summary order of the court which may direct an accounting and a payment over to the trustee * * *.”
    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.