Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 311 F.2d 163 - Nortex Trading Corp. v. Newfield

Nortex Trading Corp. v. Newfield’s Empirical Analysis

311 F.2d 163 · 1962

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
1
states following
November 2016
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably Simmons v. Savell (1985), Smith v. Dowden (1995)

7 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

120196219701980199020002010decided

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

Relies on The Inter-State National Bank of Kansas City v. Frank Luther, Trustee, Matter of Garden Grain & Seed Company, Inc., Bankrupt · In re Solar Manufacturing Corp. · 98 F. Supp. 686 - In Re Nathan · Conway v. Union Bank of Switzerland

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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The filing by Nortex of its proof of claim is analogous to the commencement of an action within the bank ruptey proceeding. * * * The trustee’s petition is in the nature of an answer incorporating an affirmative request for relief by way of surrender of the preference. It has often been recognized that counterclaims by the trustee against a claimant are within the summary jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court * * * The claimant is deemed to consent to the jurisdiction of the court upon filing its proof of claim.””
    1 later decision 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.