Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 269 U.S. 121 - Freshman v. Atkins

Freshman v. Atkins’s Empirical Analysis

269 U.S. 121 · 1925

Citation profile

508
cited by 508 later decisions
10
cited 10 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

149 federal appellate · 30 district · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 508 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2019 · most notably United States v. Pink (1942), National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Thompson (1930)

149 federal appellate · 30 district · 18 state decisions

9801925193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Dimmick v. Tompkins · Bienville Water Supply Co. v. Mobile · Bluthenthal v. Jones · Louisville Trust Co. v. City of Cincinnati

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

  1. “... [Tjhey reach the same conclusion, which is, in effect, that the pendency of the first application precluded a consideration of the second in respect of the same debts. In this conclusion we concur. A proceeding in bankruptcy has for one of its objects the discharge of the bankrupt from his debts. In voluntary proceedings, as both of these were, that is the primary object. Denial of a discharge from the debts provable, or failure to apply for it within the statutory time, bars an application under a second proceeding for discharge from the same debts.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “... the law will not tolerate two suits at the same time for the same cause.... To ignore it, and make a second application, involving a new hearing, was an imposition upon and an abuse of the process of the court ... Not only should the court of bankruptcy protect creditors from an attempt to retry an issue already tried and determined between the same parties, but the court, for its own protection, should arrest, in limine, so flagrant an attempt to circumvent its decrees.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the court may well act of its own motion to suppress an attempt to overreach the due and orderly administration of justice.”
    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.