In the Matter of Athen Carlton Garland, Bankrupts’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. ““The significant matter is the disappearance of the former pauper provision, and the substitution of a requirement that a bankrupt who asserts contemporaneously with the filing of his petition that he cannot pay the fee, may pay in installments, but must pay ultimately as a condition precedent to discharge .... “In this positive framework there is no room to apply a broad interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a) .... That section provides in general terms for the waiver of prepayment of court fees in case of indigency. Where the Bankruptcy Act already has a special provision for postponement of fees in case of indigency, we cannot read into it a different provision of a general statute not made specifically applicable.... Of more basic importance, section 1915(a) provides for waiver of prepayment only, not for forgiveness .... It cannot be read to eliminate a requirement of ultimate payment phrased as a condition precedent.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. DeLeon v. Gurda Farms, Inc. (In Re Gurda Farms, Inc.)

2. “The primary question must be why an individual admitting no assets has need for a discharge. If he has nothing, or if whatever he has is exempt under 11 U.S.C. § 24 , it would seem that his creditors would find it pointless to pursue him. If they should pursue, one would wonder what the debtor could have to be concerned about. We can think of only two classes of seemingly assetless persons who might want a discharge: those who in fact have assets, but hope to conceal them, and those who have none, but, as present petitioners .claim for themselves, expect future assets, and wish to be rid of their creditors first. The first category deserves, of course, no consideration. We do not think the claim of the second so compelling that they must be constitutionally entitled to a free discharge. Id. at 1187-1188 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 323 F. Supp. 1082 - In Re Smith

3. ““Although bankruptcy is administered in a ‘court’ it is in most particulars a very unusual court. ‘The core of bankruptcy is administrative.’ St. Regis Paper Co. v. Jackson, 5 Cir., 1966, 369 F.2d 136, 141 . Referees are primarily administrators who, together with trustees, render financial services. A bankruptcy is not litigation in the normal understanding of the term, but merely a process under which the bankrupt files a petition, turns over his assets, if any, and awaits the receipt of a discharge.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 336 F. Supp. 746 - Application of Ottman