Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 507 F.2d 301 - Hyde Properties v. McCoy

Hyde Properties v. McCoy’s Empirical Analysis

507 F.2d 301 · 1974

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
4
states following
March 2012
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently March 2012 · most notably Hildebrand v. Board of Trustees of Michigan State University (1979), Wieboldt Stores, Inc. v. Schottenstein (1988)

16 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions

18019741980199020002010decided

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 Beacon Theaters Inc v. C Westover · Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood · Ross v. Bernhard · Rodriquez v. United States · Liberty Oil Co v. Condon Nat Bank

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

  1. ““Because no right to jury trial existed, the jury empanelled by the district court was, in effect, an advisory one. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 39(c). Since it is within the discretion of the trial court to accept or reject the verdict of an advisory jury, it can by the same token disregard the jury’s responses to the interrogatories.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A creditor under Tennessee law has two possible remedies for a fraudulent conveyance — he can have the transfer set aside or annulled, or he can ignore the conveyance and levy an execution upon the property. The first alternative is exclusively within the power of equity. The second option is a legal remedy based on the theory that a fraudulent conveyance, though valid between the parties, is void as to creditors. Because such a transfer is void, a court of law may grant a creditor either a levy of attachment or execution. Although a creditor has a choice of proceeding either at law or in equity, we are of the view that for the purposes of determining a right to a jury trial the creditor must proceed at law unless such a remedy is inadequate. Without this requirement, it is clear that a creditor could decide to pursue his relief in equity and, thereby, deny to his adversary the right to a jury under the Seventh Amendment. To prevent a party from thus controlling the constitutional rights of his opponent, the legal remedy must be inadequate before the equitable means of redress can be employed.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"Every conveyance made and every obligation incurred by a person who is or will be thereby rendered insolvent is fraudulent as to creditors without regard to his actual intent, if the conveyance is made or the obligation is incurred without a fair consideration.””
    2 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.