Connell v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis
291 U.S. 1 · 1934
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 6 district · 60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 126 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1982 · most notably Lowendahl v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad (1936), Fischer v. Pauline Oil & Gas Co. (1940)
25 federal appellate · 6 district · 60 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 107 · 11 U.S.C. § 110
Relies on Isaacs v. Hobbs Tie & Timber Co. · Straton v. New · Metcalf Brothers Company v. Benjamin Barker Jr · Acme Harvester Company v. Beekman Lumber Company · First National Bank of Jacksboro v. Lasater
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 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““all * * * liens obtained through legal proceedings against a person who is insolvent, at any time within four months prior to the filing of a petition in bankruptcy against Mm, shall be deemed null and void in case he is adjudge a bankrupt, and the property affected by the levy, judgment, attachment, or other lien shall be deemed wholly discharged and released from the same, and shall pass to the trustee as a part of the estate of the bankrupt.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Bankruptcy proceedings do not, merely by virtue of their maintenance, terminate an action already pending in a non-bankruptcy court, to which the bankrupt is a party. * * * This is obviously the case where the suit like the present one is brought by a creditor 'to set aside a fraudulent conveyance of the bankrupt, made more than four months before the petition in bankruptcy. The right asserted is one given the creditor by state law which the Bankruptcy Act withdraws from him only upon the election of the trustee to assert the rights of the creditor, as he is privileged to do by section 70c, 11 U.S.C.A. § 110 (c), an election, which, in this case, does not appear to have been made. * * The question remains whether, the trustee having failed to assert any rights with respect to the pending action, the state court was required to stay it by any provision or necessary implication of the Bankruptcy Act. * * * The authority given by that section to stay pending suits after adjudication, which has taken place here, is not mandatory, but permissive, to be exercised in the sound discretion of the court, There is no suggestion that there was any abuse of discretion by the state court in re f using to stay its hand on the bare showing by the fradulent bankrupt that there had been an adjudication in bankruptcy. * * * On the other hand, if section 11a [ 11 U.S.C.A. § 29 (a)] does not apply, but if i t be assumed that the general scheme of the Act implies some duty of the state court. to ”
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.