Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 276 U.S. 542 - Danciger v. Smith

Danciger v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

276 U.S. 542 · 1928

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
July 2016
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 2 district · 21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2016 · most notably Meyer v. Fleming (1946), United States v. Louisiana (1960)

22 federal appellate · 2 district · 21 state decisions

1901928193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 First National Bank of Jacksboro v. Lasater · Johnson v. Collier · Fuller v. New York Fire Insurance · Rand v. Iowa Central Railway Co.

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

  1. “that a bankrupt who omits to schedule and withholds all knowledge of a valuable claim, cannot, after 'obtaining a discharge from his debts; assert title to such claim and maintain a suit thereon in his own right .... ” . Marshall’s amended Schedule D states that she incurred this debt to attorney Myles on December 30, 2005, three months after she had filed her bankruptcy petition seeking a discharge of pre-petition debts.” See 11 U.S.C. § 727 (b) (providing that a discharge under Chapter 7 relieves the debtor”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It is clear that under these provisions [Sections 11c and 70 of the Bankruptcy Act] an adjudication in bankruptcy, until followed by the appointment of a trustee, does not divest the bankrupt’s title to a cause of action against a third person or prevent him from instituting or maintaining suit thereon. Thus he may institute and maintain such a suit before the election of a trustee . . . [o]r, if no trustee is appointed. [Citations omitted]” 48 S.Ct. at 345 . “If the trustee will not sue and the bankrupt cannot sue, it might result in a bankrupt’s debtor being discharged of an actual liability.” 276 U.S. at 546 , 48 S. Ct. at 345 , citing Johnson v. Collier, 222 U.S. 538, 539 , 32 S.Ct. 104 , 56 L.Ed. 206 (1911). ;fc J-: ‡ sfc”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “While for many purposes the filing of the petition operates in the nature of an attachment upon choses in action and other property of the bankrupt, yet his title is not thereby divested. He is still the owner, though holding in trust until the appointment and qualification of the trustee, who thereupon becomes “vested by operation of law with the title of the bankrupt” as of the date of adjudication. [Emphasis added.]”
    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.