Cottingham v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis
55 F.2d 664 · 1932
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently October 1996
6 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
Relies on McClellan v. Carland · Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Co. · Byers v. McAuley · Payne v. Hook · Sutton v. English
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Here the fiduciary claimed to have complied with the administration of his trust, and further claimed that nothing was due the plaintiffs. To settle this issue was in no way an administration of the estate. While a federal court has no power to take possession of the property held by a state court, or to take over the administration of an intestate estate, the court, acting in equity, does have power to enforce a trust as against a fiduciary and reward relief against him, where, as here, the administration has been completed and he has funds in his hands belonging to the distrib- utees, for which he failed to account. (Emphasis added.) 2”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Law v. Law
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.