Flora Mir Candy Corporation v. Dickson’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
21 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Union Savings Bank v. Augie/Restivo Baking Co. (1988), In re Owens Corning (2005)
21 federal appellate ·
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 Local Loan Co. v. Hunt · Douglas v. Alabama · United States v. El Paso Natural Gas Co. · United States v. Forness · Keys v. United States
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘[U]sed sparingly’, because of the possibility of unfair treatment of creditors who have dealt solely with the [companies] having a surplus as opposed to those who have dealt with the related entities with deficiencies.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a measure vitally affecting substantive rights.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“But here there was no evidence as in the Chemical Bank case cited, that the interrelationships of the group are hopelessly obscured .... To the contrary, the accountants in relatively short order had managed to come up with financial statements of each of the debtors, [footnote omitted]. Whatever problems there might be with respect to intercompany accounts among other debtors, those with respect to Meadows were few.... In re Flora Mir Candy Corp., supra at 1063.”
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.