Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 459 F.2d 556 - In re United Network, Inc.

In re United Network, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

459 F.2d 556 · 1972

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
July 2000
most recently cited

3 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently July 2000

3 federal appellate ·

301972198019902000decided

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

Applies 11 U.S.C. § 108 · 11 U.S.C. § 701

Relies on Dilbert's Leasing Development Corp Dilbert's Quality Supermarkets Inc · 34 West 34th Street Corp. v. Nehama Realty Corp.

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

  1. “1. Whenever money shall be deposited or advanced on a contract for the use or rental of personal property as security for performance of the contract or to be applied to payments upon such contract when due, such money, with interest accruing thereon, if any, until repaid or so applied, shall continue to be the money of the person making such deposit or advance and shall be a trust fund in the possession of the person with whom such deposit or advance shall be made and shall be deposited in a bank or trust company and shall not be mingled with other funds or become an asset of such trustee.... 2. Any provision of a contract whereby a person who has deposited or advanced money on a contract for the use or rental of personal property as security for the performance of the contract waives any provision of this section is absolutely void.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the contract's foremost concern was with the use of television equipment ... and the bulk of the ... payments was for the purpose of obtaining such use,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a contract in which the supply of services [i]s a substantial element might very well not come within the coverage of § 7-101.”
    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.