In re Brill’s Empirical Analysis
52 F.2d 636 · 1931
Citation profile
16 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently March 2006 · most notably County of Napa v. Franciscan Vineyards, Inc. (1979), Hughes Alonzo Robinson v. Tommy C. Mann, Trustee (1964)
16 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 J. B. Orcutt Co. v. Green · Scottsville Nat. Bank v. Gilmer · In re Gubelman · In re Roeber · In re Fant
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[I]f the court be informed by its own files of the existence, nature, and amount of a claim, then however defective may be the form in which the information is given, there is no bar; at least, the statute of limitations does not prevent the claim being entertained by the court if, in its discretion, it shall permit the proof of debt to be amended so as to meet the requirements as to form.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fausett v. Murner · In Re Murchison““Whether the court may extend the statutory period for filing proofs of claims is a slightly more complex question. The inherent equity powers of the bankruptcy court, so frequently referred to, are a tempting instrument to mitigate the harshness involved in any statutory time limitation, but under the Act courts have generally withstood the temptation even in situations in which the equities of the case, if they might have been considered, spoke strongly in favor of equitable relief. The weight of authority considers the statutory six months’ period as mandatory and immutable. ‘This is a statute of limitations. It is even more. It is a prohibition. It is peremptory.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Matter of Walter
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.