Ex parte Baldwin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

150 federal appellate · 33 district · 37 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 399 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““First, all property in the possession of a bankrupt of which he claims the ownership passes, upon the filing of a petition in bankruptcy, into the custody of the court of bankruptcy. To protect its jurisdiction from interference, that court .may issue an injunction. The power is not peculiar to bankruptcy or to the federal courts. It is an application of the general principle that, where a court of competent jurisdiction has, through its officers, taken property into its possession, the property is thereby withdrawn from the jurisdiction of other courts. Having possession, the- court may not only issue all writs necessary to protect its possession froift physical interference, but is entitled to determine all questions respecting the same. Julian v. Central Trust Co., 193 U.S. 93 , 112, 24 S.Ct. 399 , 48 L.Ed. 629 ; compare Riehle v. Margolies, 279 U.S. 218 , 223, 49 S.Ct. 310 , 73 L.Ed. 669 ; Straton v. New, 283 U.S. [318] 319, 51 S.Ct. 465 , 75 L.Ed. 1060 . The jurisdiction in such cases is esclusive of the jurisdiction of other courts, although otherwise the controversy would be cognizable in them. Murphy v. John Hofman Co., 211 U.S. 562 , 569, 29 S.Ct. 154 , 53 L.Ed. 327 . In bankruptcy, this rule applies regardless of whether the property is located in the district in which the bankruptcy proceeding originated. The injunction to protect its possession may issue either from the court of original jurisdiction or from the federal court for the district in which the state c”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Callaway v. Benton · Texas Co. v. Hauptman

2. “All property in the possession of a bankrupt of which he claims the ownership passes, upon the filing of a petition in bankruptcy, into the custody of the court in bankruptcy . . . . The jurisdiction in such cases is exclusive of the jurisdiction of other courts, although otherwise the controversy would be cognizable in them. . . . . 25 . . . But the exclusive jurisdiction acquired by the bankruptcy court through taking possession of the interurban railway under claim of title, was not limited to the prevention of interference with the use of the land . . .. The jurisdiction extends also to the adjudication of questions respecting the title.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In the Matter of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, Debtor

3. ““Every receiver or manager of any property appointed by any court of the United States may be sued in respect of any act or transaction of his in carrying on the business connected with such property, without the previous leave of the court in which such receiver or manager was appointed; but such suit shall be subject to the general equity jurisdiction of the court in which such manager or receiver was appointed so far as the same may be necessary to the ends of justice.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McGreavey v. Straw