Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 273 F.2d 682 - United States v. Harvey Mighell and Florence Mighell, in the Matter of Harvey Mighell and Florence Mighell, Bankrupts

United States v. Harvey Mighell and Florence Mighell, in the Matter of Harvey Mighell and Florence Mighell, Bankrupts’s Empirical Analysis

273 F.2d 682 · 1959

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
November 1997
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1997 · most notably United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. (1989), Bruning v. United States (1964)

20 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

15019591960197019801990decided

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 Local Loan Co. v. Hunt · City of New York v. Saper · United States v. Harrington · United States v. California · United States v. Bass

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

  1. ““Debts not affected by a discharge, (a) A discharge in bankruptcy shall release a bankrupt from all of his provable debts, whether allowable in full or in part, except such as (1) are due as a tax levied by the United States, or any State, county, district, or municipality; (2) are liabilities for obtaining money or property by false pretenses or false representations, or for willful and malicious injuries to the person or property of another, or for alimony due or to become due, or for maintenance or support of wife or child, or for seduction of an unmarried female, or for breach of promise of marriage accompanied by seduction, or for criminal conversation; (3) have not been duly scheduled in time for proof and allowance, with the name of the creditor, if known to the bankrupt, unless such creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the proceedings in bankruptcy; or (4) were created by his fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation or defalcation while acting as an officer or in any fiduciary capacity; or (5) are for wages which have been earned within three months before the date of commencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy due to workmen, servants, clerks, or traveling or city salesmen, on salary or commission basis, whole or part time, whether or not selling exclusively for the bankrupt; or (6) are due for moneys of an employee received or retained by his employer to secure the faithful performance by such employee of the terms of a contract of employment.””
    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.