Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 57 F. Supp. 359 - In re Herold

57 F. Supp. 359 - In re Herold’s Empirical Analysis

1943

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
August 1990
most recently cited

1 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently August 1990

1 federal appellate ·

10194319501960197019801990decided

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. § 701

Relies on Ames v. Trenton Brewing Co. · Domestic Electric Co., Inc. v. Mezzaluna · Parker v. Wulstein · MacLeod v. Walter J. Satterthwait, Inc. · Carr v. Adams

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

  1. “The word “improvement” may be said to comprehend everything that tends to add to the value or convenience of a building or a place of business, whether it be a store, manufacturing establishment, warehouse or farming premises. It certainly includes repairs of every description. It necessarily includes much more than the term “fixtures.” Indeed, so far as I am able to understand, it is difficult to conceive any additions made to a building by a tenant for his own convenience in the conduct of the business which may not properly be included in the term “improvements.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[the above] clause is clearly determinative of the rights of the parties, and it is unnecessary to resort, as did the referee, to the law of fixtures to ascertain the meaning of its unequivocal language.... The lighting system, of which the lighting fixtures were an integral part, was an “improvement” within the meaning of the lease, and became the property of the Petitioner (the landlord) upon its installation. [citations omitted]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “That no alterations, additions or improvements shall be made in or to the premises without the consent of the Landlord in writing, under penalty of damages and forfeiture, and all additions and improvements made by the Tenant shall belong to the Landlord.”
    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.