In Re Decker’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 4 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently July 2011 · most notably Domozik v. Cohen (1969), Hyman v. Porter (In Re Porter) (1984)
10 federal appellate · 4 district · 10 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.
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 107 · 11 U.S.C. § 110
Relies on Josiah Coder v. William Arts · Dean v. Davis · Van Iderstine v. National Discount Co. · Stilgenbaur v. United States · Hutcheson v. Savings Bank of Richmond
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"... an attempted assignment by one partner of his rights in all the partnership property, may be regarded as a valid assignment of the partner’s interest in the partnership.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A partner's right in specific partnership property is not assignable except in connection with the assignment of the rights of all the partners in the same property.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Every transfer made and every obligation incurred by a debtor within one year prior to the filing of a petition initiating a proceeding under this title by or against him is fraudulent (a) as to creditors existing at the time of such transfer or obligation, if made or incurred without fair consideration by a debtor who is or will be thereby rendered insolvent, without regard to his actual intent; * * * or (d) as to then existing and future creditors, if made or incurred with actual intent as distinguished from intent presumed in law, to hinder, delay, or defraud either existing or future creditors.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Woodson v. Gilmer
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.