Harrison v. Chamberlin’s Empirical Analysis
271 U.S. 191 · 1926
Citation profile
481 federal appellate · 79 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 846 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2016 · most notably Cline v. Kaplan (1944), MacDonald v. Plymouth County Trust Co. (1932)
481 federal appellate · 79 district · 14 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange · Mueller v. Nugent · Binderup v. Pathe Exchange, Inc. · Taubel-Scott-Kitzmiller Co. v. Fox
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 846 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is so unsubstantial and obviously insufficient, either in fact or law, as to be plainly without color of merit, and a mere pretense.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is well settled that a court of bankruptcy is without jurisdiction to adjudicate in a summary proceeding a controversy in reference to property held adversely to the bankrupt estate, without the consent of the adverse claimant; but resort must be had by the trustee to a plenary suit. * * * However, the court is not ousted of its jurisdiction by the mere assertion of an adverse claim; but, having the power in the first instance to determine whether it has jurisdiction to proceed, the court may enter upon a preliminary inquiry to determine whether the adverse claim is real and substantial or merely colorable. And if found to be merely colorable the court may then proceed to adjudicate the merits summarily; but if found to be real and substantial it must decline to determine the merits and dismiss the summary proceeding. * * * “In the present case the holding of the District Court that the adverse claim was merely colorable was evidently based upon its conclusion, upon the entire evidence, that the claim was fraudulent; and was, in effect, an adjudication upon the merits. * * * It is clear, however, that an actual claim may be adverse and substantial even though in fact ‘fraudulent and voidable.’ * * *" 3”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In the present case it clearly appears that the validity of the respondent’s claim depended upon disputed facts, as to which there was a conflict of evidence, as well as a controversy in matter of law. Its determination involved ‘fair doubt and reasonable room for controversy’ both as to fact and law. It was therefore substantial, and not merely colorable; and its merits could only be adjudged in'a plenary suit.””
2 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.