Sussman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. ““ * * * In June, 1956, Sussman may well have contemplated the likelihood that he would be able to assert a loss carry-back claim against the United States within a few months. But he could point to no existing fund and to no existing cause of action in which he had any legal or equitable interest. “(1) Perhaps this June expectation that a right to a refund would arise six or seven months later can be described as a contingent claim against the United States. But no such formulation can enlarge or in any way alter the limiting terms and conditions upon which the sovereign has agreed to recognize such a claim. The United States has not agreed that such a contingent claim against it can be assigned or attached, as Section 70, sub. a(5) requires. Rather, the transferability of claims against the United States has been narrowly restricted by the Assignment of Claims Act, 31 U.S. C.A. § 203. Certainly, in June, 1956, Sussman’s expectation of a future claim against the government was not assignable, even as between Sussman and any assignee. Cf. Matter of Ideal Mercantile Corp., 2 Cir., 1957, 244 F.2d 828 , certiorari denied 1957, 355 U.S. 856 , 78 S.Ct. 84 , 2 L.Ed.2d 63 ; Wooton v. United States, 1949, 86 F.Supp. 143 , 114 Ct.Cl. 608 , certiorari denied 1950, 339 U.S. 903 , 70 S.Ct. 517 , 94 L.Ed. 1333 . “(2) We find the conclusion inescapable that in June, 1956 Sussman had no right of action against the United States and no vested or transferable property in his anticipated claim ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Segal · In Re Goodson

2. ““It has already been stated that Sussman’s taxable year was the calendar year. There is no provision in law that bankruptcy terminates a taxable year. Therefore, when Sussman filed his bankruptcy petition he had no ‘right of action’ against the United States for the trustee to acquire * * Id. 289 F.2d at 77-78 . [Emphasis added.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stoller v. United States

3. “property, including rights of action, which prior to the filing of the petition he [the bankrupt] could by any means have transferred or which might have been levied upon and sold under judicial process against him, or otherwise seized, impounded or sequestered * * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Davis v. Commissioner