Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 383 F.2d 779 - Mason v. Ashback

Mason v. Ashback’s Empirical Analysis

383 F.2d 779 · 1967

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
September 2016
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably Merrill v. Abbott (In Re Independent Clearing House Co.) (1984), In re Chung King, Inc. (1985)

13 federal appellate · 1 district ·

80196719701980199020002010decided

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 Webster v. Barnes Banking Co. · Rose Florence May v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, in the Matter of Rose Florence May, Bankrupt · Allen v. Union Transfer 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““There were no creditors present at the time of bidding nor is there any indication they were given notice of the procedure. ‘The sale was wholly illusory. The action of the trustee in petitioning for leave to make the sale and the order of the referee directing the sale were clearly improvident and worked a legal fraud on the creditors.’ ””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[a] court of equity may set aside an order of sale either before or after confirmation when it appears that the same was entered through mistake, inadvertence, or improvidence. While a judicial sale will not be set aside on the ground of inadequacy of price alone, unless the inadequacy is so great as to shock the conscience of the chancellor, inadequacy of price, accompanied with other circumstances having a tendency to cause such inadequacy, or indicating any apparent unfairness or impropriety, will justify setting aside the sale. Such additional circumstances may be slight and insufficient in themselves to justify vacating the sale.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Here the bidders were the only persons, except the creditors, who could have been interested in the price paid for the chose in action. The bidders were each interested in receiving the chose for the lowest possible amount, whereas, the unrepresented creditors were interested in obtaining the greatest possible amount for their benefit at the time of distribution of assets.”
    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.