Case v. Los Angeles Lumber Products Co.’s Empirical Analysis
308 U.S. 106 · 1939
Citation profile
486 federal appellate · 115 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,565 later decisions (74 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Norwest Bank Worthington v. Ahlers (1988), Protective Committee for Independent Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson (1968)
486 federal appellate · 115 district · 31 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
reviewedCase v. Los Angeles Lumber Products Co. (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Continental Illinois Nat Bank Trust Co of Chicago v. Chicago R I & P Ry Co · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Boyd · Taylor v. Standard Gas & Electric Co. · Swift Company v. Hocking Valley Railway Company
Cited together with Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Boyd · Consolidated Rock Products Co. v. Du Bois · Norwest Bank Worthington v. Ahlers · Group of Institutional Investors v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad · Pepper v. Litton
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 1,565 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“essential to the success of the undertaking”
36 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“has no place in the asset column of the balance sheet of the new [entity].”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Upon the certification of a plan by the Commission to the court, the court shall give due notice to all parties in interest of the time within which such parties may file with the court their objections to such plan, and such parties shall file, within such time as may be fixed in said notice, detailed and specific objections in writing to the plan and their claims for equitable treatment. The judge shall, after notice in such manner as he may determine to the debtor, its trustee or trustees, stockholders, creditors, and the Commission, hear all parties in interest in support of, and in opposition to, such objections to the plan and such claims for equitable treatment. After such hearing, and without any hearing if no objections are filed, the judge shall approve the plan if satisfied that: (1) It complies with the provisions of subsection (b), of this section, is fair and equitable, affords due recognition to the rights of each class of creditors and stockholders, does not discriminate unfairly in favor of any class of creditors or stockholders, and will conform to the requirements of the law of the land regarding the participation of the various classes of creditors and stockholders; (2) the approximate amounts to be paid by the debtor, or by any corporation or corporations acquiring the debtor’s assets, for expenses and fees incident to the reorganization, have been fully disclosed so far as they can be ascertained at the date of such hearing, are reasonable, are within s”
4 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.