Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 289 U.S. 165 - Royal Indemnity Co. v. American Bond & Mortgage Co.

Royal Indemnity Co. v. American Bond & Mortgage Co.’s Empirical Analysis

289 U.S. 165 · 1933

Citation profile

165
cited by 165 later decisions
9
cited 9 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
August 2013
most recently cited

52 federal appellate · 9 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 165 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2013 · most notably United States v. American Trucking Associations (1940), Securities & Exchange Commission v. United States Realty & Improvement Co. (1940)

52 federal appellate · 9 district · 11 state decisions

530193319401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Chicago Bank of Commerce v. Carter · In re Guanacevi Tunnel Co. · In re C. Moench & Sons Co. · In re American & British Mfg. Corp.

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

  1. ““The question is purely one of the internal management of the corporation. Creditors have no standing to plead statutory requirements not intended for their protection. If the stockholders’ rights had been infringed, and they chose to waive them, a creditor could not assert them in opposing an adjudication [as a bankrupt].” Id. at 171 .”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The decree in equity and its execution by officers of the court did not change the ownership of the assets or of the business. The corporation continued to have the only business owned before the appointment of receivers, though the actual conduct of its operations was for the time being vested in the court’s appointees.” 289 U. S. page 168, 53 S. Ct. 553 . “Until a winding up had been effected the business formerly conducted by the company in Chicago continued to be the respondent’s business and not that of another, and the place where that business was conducted, whether by receivers or by the corporate officers, still remained the ‘principal place of business/ in the common acceptation of the phrase.” 289 U. S. page 169, 53 S. Ct. 553 . (Italics ours.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “where [its] business is in fact transacted.”
    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.