Williams v. Austrian’s Empirical Analysis
331 U.S. 642 · 1947
Citation profile
85 federal appellate · 18 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 235 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1988 · most notably Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. (1982), Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. (1957)
85 federal appellate · 18 district · 3 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
reviewedAustrian v. Williams (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Continental Illinois Nat Bank Trust Co of Chicago v. Chicago R I & P Ry Co
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 235 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. . . courts of bankruptcy . . . are hereby invested . . . with such jurisdiction at law and in equity as will enable them to exercise original jurisdiction in proceedings under this title . . . , to— (7) Cause the estates of bankrupts to be collected, reduced to money, and distributed, and determine controversies in relation thereto, except as herein otherwise provided . ; and where in a controversy arising in a proceeding under this title an adverse party does not interpose objection to the summary jurisdiction of the court of bankruptcy, by answer or motion filed before the expiration of the time prescribed by law or rule of court or fixed or extended by order of court for the filing of an answer to the petition, motion or other pleading to which he is adverse, he shall be deemed to have consented to such jurisdiction; ...”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) The United States district courts shall have jurisdiction of all controversies at law and in equity, as distinguished from proceedings under this title, between receivers and trustees as such and adverse claimants, concerning the property acquired or claimed by the receivers or trustees, in the same manner and to the same extent as though such proceedings had not been instituted and such controversies had been between the bankrupts and such adverse claimants. (b) Suits by the receiver and the trustee shall be brought or prosecuted only in the courts where the bankrupt might have brought or prosecuted them if proceedings under this title had not been instituted, unless by consent of the defendant .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Suits by the receiver and the trustee shall be brought or prosecuted only in the courts where the bankrupt might have brought or prosecuted them if proceedings under this title had not been instituted, unless by consent of the defendant, except as provided in sections 96, 107, and 110 of this title.””
2 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.