Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 356 F.2d 749 - Elliott v. Bumb

Elliott v. Bumb’s Empirical Analysis

356 F.2d 749 · 1966

Citation profile

120
cited by 120 later decisions
2
states following
July 2015
most recently cited

51 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 120 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably In Re Bullion Reserve of North America, a California Corporation, Curtis B. Danning, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Theodore P. Bozek (1988), Selby v. Ford Motor Co. (1979)

51 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

610196619701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedthe decision below (from Arizona District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Jaffke v. Dunham · John Deere Plow Co. v. McDavid · 111 Cal. App. 310 - Darrow v. Robert A. Klein Co., Inc. · Ginsburg v. Mears

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

  1. “Furthermore, even had there been no written agreement, the relationship of Security and Van’s as principal and agent would seem to have required the impressing of a constructive trust upon funds received by the agent from the sale of his principal’s property and retained by the agent in segregated identity, (citations omitted) Therefore, as to the $2,014.99, in existence and clearly identified, the trustee of Security’s estate is entitled to the fund.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Once the trust relationship has been established, one claiming as a cestui que trust thereunder must identify the trust fund or property in the estate, and, if such fund or property has been mingled with the general property of the debtor, sufficiently trace the trust property. If the trust fund or property cannot be identified in its original or substituted form, the ces-tui becomes merely a general creditor of the estate. The same result will accrue where the trust property has been disposed of or dissipated in such manner as to leave nothing in its place. If the claimant succeeds in making the requisite proof, it then devolves upon the bankruptcy trustee to distinguish between what belongs to the estate and what belongs to the cestui que trust. The situation frequently occurs where the trust funds have been traced into a general bank account of the debtor. The following general principles have been applied. The bankruptcy court will follow the trust fund and decree restitution where the amount of the deposit has at all times since the intermingling of funds equaled or exceeded the amount of the trust fund. But where, after the appropriation and mingling, all of the moneys are withdrawn, the equity of the cestui is lost, although moneys from other sources are subsequently deposited in the same account. In the intermediate case where the account is reduced to a smaller sum than the trust fund, the latter must be regarded as dissipated, except as to the balance, and funds sub”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““State trust law must not be allowed to pervert or override the distributive provisions of the Bankruptcy Act. A state rule which purports to fasten a general lien on a person’s estate in the event of insolvency or a general liquidation must be regarded as a priority in disguise and incompatible with the order of distribution prescribed for bankruptcy. The adoption of § 64(a)(5) and § 67c of the Bankruptcy Act was intended to make clear that state rules of priority of distribution must yield in bankruptcy cases to that prescribed by the Act.” Elliott v. Bumb, supra, 356 F.2d .at 754.”
    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.