Ivanhoe Building Loan Ass'n of Newark Nj v. Orr’s Empirical Analysis
295 U.S. 243 · 1935
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 15 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 165 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Reconstruction Finance Corporation v. Denver & Rgwr Co Same (1946), Zwick v. Freeman (1967)
52 federal appellate · 15 district · 5 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
reviewedIvanhoe Building & Loan Ass'n v. Orr (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Hiscock v. Varick Bank of New York · Swarts v. Fourth National Bank · Board of Com'rs v. Hurley · In re Mertens
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.
“'Secured creditor' shall include a creditor who has security for his debt upon the property of the bankrupt of a nature to be assignable under this title or who owns such a debt for which some endorser, surety, or other person secondarily liable for the bankrupt has such security upon the bankrupt's assets.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[d]ecision must be governed by the relevant provisions of the Bankruptcy Act. The definition found in § 1(23) is: "`Secured creditor' shall include a creditor who has security for his debt upon the property of the bankrupt of a nature to be assignable under this Act, or who owns such a debt for which some indorser, surety, or other persons secondarily liable for the bankrupt has such security upon the bankrupt's assets." Section 57(e) directs that "Claims of secured creditors . . . shall be allowed for such sums only as to the courts seem to be owing over and above their securities . . . " Unless the petitioner was a secured creditor as defined by § 1(23) it was not bound to have its security or the avails thereof valued and to prove only for the difference between that value and the face amount of the debt. Petitioner does not come within the definition, for at the date of bankruptcy it held no security against the bankrupt company's property, nor security given by any other person who in turn was secured by the bankrupt's assets. Sections 1(23) and 57(e) do not, therefore, forbid the proof of a claim for the principal of the bond with interest, though the petitioner may not collect and retain dividends which with the sum realized from the foreclosure will more than make up that amount.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Claims of secured creditors . . . shall be allowed for such sums only as to the courts seem to be owing over and above their securities . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re FWDC, Inc.
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.