Danning v. Daylin, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
488 F.2d 185 · 1973
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently May 1990
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
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. § 110
Relies on Moore v. Bay Estate of Sassard & Kimball · Schainman v. Dean · 68 F. Supp. 376 - In Re Mercury Engineering, Inc. · Jubas v. Sampsell
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When a transaction falls within the scope of Section 6102, the transferee must give notice of the transaction to the transferor’s creditors, giving them time to investigate the proposed transfer and to protest if necessary. §§ 6105 and 6107. Failure to give notice renders the bulk transfer ‘fraudulent and void’ against the transferor’s creditors. § 6105.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The plain meaning of the statute is that when a storekeeper disposes of a substantial part of his stock in trade in bulk, and selling in bulk sales is not the usual and ordinary way in which he conducts his business from day to day, the sale falls within the statute.””
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.