Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Arenz’s Empirical Analysis
290 U.S. 66 · 1933
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 3 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2019 · most notably United States v. McNinch (1958), Barrett v. United States (1986)
24 federal appellate · 3 district · 21 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
reviewedFidelity & Deposit Co. v. Arenz (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Gleason v. Thaw · Pritchard Ex'X v. Norton · Pirie v. Chicago Title & Trust Co. · Farmers Loan & Trust Co. v. Minnesota · Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway v. State
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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘Property’ is a word of very broad meaning, and, when used without qualification, expressly made or plainly implied, it reasonably may be construed to include obligations, rights, and other intangibles as well as physical things.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Property” is a word of very broad meaning, and, when used without qualification, expressly made or plainly implied, it reasonably may be construed to include obligations, rights, and other intangibles as well as physical things, (citations omitted) For the meaning rightly here to be given the word, regard is to be had to the statute and connection in which it is found, (citations omitted) The Act, while making discharge of bankrupts the general rule, conditions the grant upon adherence by every applicant to the standards of honesty and fair dealing in business transactions that are required or reflected in section 32(b)(1), (2), (3), (4), (6), (7), 11 USCA. The fraud perpetrated by respondent is of the kind condemned. Giving effect to the rule that legislative intent controls, it is plain that “property” includes petitioner’s obligation according to the terms of the bond to pay respondent’s debts, (citations omitted)”
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.