In re Eureka Upholstering Co.’s Empirical Analysis
48 F.2d 95 · 1931
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably Fanelli v. Hensley (1983), United States v. Sutton (1986)
30 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 104
Relies on Weil v. Neary · In re Stearns Salt & Lumber Co. · In re Medina Quarry Co. · In re Felson
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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The requirement of court approval of an attorney’s employment in a bankruptcy case was adopted] to control serious abuses and [is] to be strictly observed; without an order of the court ... not only may he not be retained, but he can recover nothing, no matter how beneficial, or how arduous, his services.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t would seem scarcely necessary to say that the receiver or trustee, and he alone, can recover for services in collecting the estate.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The receiver is responsible for the collection of the assets ... and he alone can authorize any charges against them. If any creditor, petitioning or other, learns facts which lead him to suppose that property has been concealed, he may, and indeed he should, advise the receiver, and if the receiver prove slack, he may apply to the referee [the bankruptcy judge] to stir him to action. The referee or the [district] judge may then authorize the creditor to proceed, and he will be entitled to his reward under [§ 64], but not otherwise.”
3 later decisions 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.