Nixon v. Michaels’s Empirical Analysis
38 F.2d 420 · 1930
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently April 1992 · most notably First State Bank & Trust Co. v. Sand Springs State Bank (1976), Kroh v. Commissioner (1992)
20 federal appellate · 3 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 Mansfield Ry Co v. Swan · Fred Bardes v. First National Bank of Hawarden Iowa · Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. Willard · Taylor v. Voss · First National Bank of Chicago v. Chicago Title Trust Company
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is true that persons not parties to the bankruptcy proceedings may usually intervene or be brought in, when necessary to protect their rights in or to a res in the bankruptcy court. * •» *» “But, leaving out of consideration preferential and fraudulent transfers, unless there is involved a res in the possession of the bankruptcy court, and in which res as a part of the bankrupt estate third parties claim rights, the bankrupcty court has no jurisdiction to allow such third parties to come into the bankruptcy court merely to litigate therein rights even against parties to the bankruptcy proceeding, and even though the property involved may once have been part of the bankrupt estate. * * *””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Richmond““The controversy involved in this suit is not one relating to the collection and distribution of the bankrupt’s estate. It is not a controversy with reference to property in the actual possession of the bankruptcy court, or where it had been taken from the possession of its trustee or receiver without its authority. It is not one arising in the bankruptcy proceedings in reference to property subject to distribution to the general creditors of the bankrupt, or one where, by the nature of the controversy, power is conferred on the court to determine conflicting liens, or the validity and priority of liens between secured creditors. * * *»”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Richmond““ * * It is a controversy which does not in the slightest degree affect the creditors of J. B. Henderson (sic), the bankrupt, nor is the trustee in any wise affected. * * * There is no provision which gives the bankruptcy court jurisdiction to hear and determine controversies of this kind. The object of the bankruptcy law is to afford the means by which the creditors of the bankrupt may secure an equitable and fair distribution of the bankrupt’s property, etc., and the act contemplates that any collateral questions growing out of the settlement of the bankrupt’s estate may be heard and determined in that court. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Richmond
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.