Young v. Higbee Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

205 federal appellate · 30 district · 28 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 570 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[H]istorically one of the prime purposes of the bankruptcy law has been to bring about a ratable distribution among creditors of a bankrupt's assets; to protect the creditors from one another.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Pusey and Jones Corporation · Weisfelner v. Fund 1 (In re Lyondell Chemical Co.)

2. ““A year before the House Committee on the Judiciary held its extensive hearings on the Chandler Act, a Circuit Court of Appeals held that a creditor could not be denied the privilege of voting on a reorganization plan under § 77B, although he bought the votes for the purpose of preventing confirmation unless certain demands of his should be met. Texas Hotel Corp. v. Waco Development Co., 87 F.2d 395 [5th Cir.1936]. The hearings make clear the purpose of the Committee to pass legislation which would bar creditors from a vote who were prompted by such a purpose. To this end they adopted the ‘good faith’ provisions of § 203. Its purpose was to prevent creditors from participating who ‘by the use of obstructive tactics and hold-up techniques exact for themselves undue advantages from the other stockholders[/creditors] who are cooperating.’ Bad faith was to be attributed to claimants who opposed a plan for a time until they were ‘bought off’; those who ‘refused to vote in favor of a plan unless ... given some particular preferential advantage.’ Hearings on Revision of the Bankruptcy Act before the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., on H.R. 6439, Serial 9, pp. 180-82.””

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pac. W. Bank v. Fagerdala United States-lompoc, Inc. (In re Fagerdala United States-lompoc, Inc.) · In Re Marin Town Center

3. “"If the acceptance or failure to accept a plan by the holder of any claim or stock is not in good faith, in light of or irrespective of the time of the acquisition thereof, the judge may, after hearing upon notice, direct that such claim or stock be disqualified for the purpose of determining the requisite majority for the acceptance of a plan.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Dune Deck Owners Corp. · In Re Applegate Property, Ltd.