Leiman v. Guttman’s Empirical Analysis
336 U.S. 1 · 1949
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 139 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2023 · most notably Wolf v. Weinstein (1963), United States v. Knight (1949)
56 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 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.
Relationships
Relies on Woods v. City Nat Bank & Trust Co of Chicago · Brown v. Gerdes · Habirshaw Electric Cable Co. v. Habirshaw Electric Cable Co. · Cooper v. Irving Trust 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 139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The aim of the expanded controls over reorganization fees and expenses is clear. The practice had been to fix them by private arrangement outside of court. The deposit agreement under which committees commonly functioned was viewed as a private contract, which granted the committee a lien on the deposited securities for its fees and expenses. By terms of the agreement the committee was normally the sole judge of their amount. This gave rise to serious abuses. There was the spectacle of fiduciaries fixing the worth of their own services and exacting fees which often had no relation to the value of services rendered. The result was that the effective amount received by creditors and stockholders under the plan was determined not by the court but by reorganization managers and committees. “Hence Congress instituted controls, controls which became more pervasive as § 77B [ 11 U.S.C.A. § 207 ] was evolved into Ch. X [ 11 U.S.C.A. § 501 et seq.]. Section 211 requires that a committee file with the court a statement disclosing specified information; including the agreement under which it operates. The scrutiny clause of § 212 gives the court power to set aside any of the provisions of such an agreement which it finds to be ‘unfair or not consistent with public policy.’ And § 221(4) is written in pervasive terms — it applies to ‘all payments’ for services ‘in connection with’ the proceeding or ‘in connection with’ the plan and ‘incident to’ the reorganization, whoever pays them. A s”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“for services or for costs and expenses in or in connection with the [bankruptcy] case.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A statute establishing such broad supervision over committees cannot be presumed to be niggardly in its grant of authority when it deals with the matter which of all the others has the most direct impact on those whom it aims to protect. * * * The statute was designed to police the return which all security holders obtain from reorganization plans. The net return cannot be kept under supervision if private arrangements expressed in escrow agreements are to control. For the impact of excessive fee claims is the same whether they are charged directly against the estate or against the claim which represents a proportionate interest in the estate.”
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.