← 578 F.2d 904 - Ollag Construction Equipment Corp. v. Goldman

Ollag Construction Equipment Corp. v. Goldman’s Empirical Analysis

578 F.2d 904 · 1978

Citation profile

cited by 31 later decisions

states following

March 2016

most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably Holtkamp v. Littlefield (1982), Nordberg v. Arab Banking Corp. (1990)

5 federal appellate · 2 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

Relies on Kelley v. Everglades Drainage District · Alan B. Miller, Trustee in Bankruptcy of American Ibc Corp., Bankrupt v. Wells Fargo Bank International Corp. · In the Matter of Hygrade Envelope Corp., Bankrupt. Samuel S. Baranow, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Hygrade Envelope Corp. v. Gibraltar Factors Corp. · Cohen v. Sutherland · 406 F. Supp. 452 - Miller v. Wells Fargo Bank International Corp.

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

“the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. In Re Tiana Queen Motel, Inc., Todem Homes, Inc., Anthony Demarco, Debtors. A. Illum Hansen, Inc. v. Tiana Queen Motel, Inc., Todem Homes, Inc., Anthony Demarco, Defendants- in Re Petition for Writ of Mandamus. A. Illum Hansen, Inc., Stanley Weisz, Phyllis H. Weisz and Stanley Weisz, P.C. Retirement Plan v. Anthony Demarco · Holtkamp v. Littlefield
“reversals under Bankruptcy Rule 752 are appropriate only when the reviewing court cannot determine the basis of the ruling below,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. In Re Tiana Queen Motel, Inc., Todem Homes, Inc., Anthony Demarco, Debtors. A. Illum Hansen, Inc. v. Tiana Queen Motel, Inc., Todem Homes, Inc., Anthony Demarco, Defendants- in Re Petition for Writ of Mandamus. A. Illum Hansen, Inc., Stanley Weisz, Phyllis H. Weisz and Stanley Weisz, P.C. Retirement Plan v. Anthony Demarco · A. Illum Hansen, Inc. v. Tiana Queen Motel, Inc.
“Learned Hand’s landmark opinion in Syracuse Engineering Co. v. Haight, 97 F.2d 573, 576 (2d Cir. 1938), taught us that contingent subrogation and contribution rights must be valued as assets in determining solvency. See also Updike v. Oakland Motor Car Co., 53 F.2d 369, 371 (2d Cir. 1931); Wingert v. President Director & Company of Hagerstown Bank, 41 F.2d 660 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 282 U.S. 871 , 51 S.Ct. 77 , 75 L.Ed. 769 (1930). Cf. Schwartz v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 560 F.2d 311, 317 (8th Cir. 1977). In the case at bar, we are left in murky obscurity regarding the actual value of . . . (the debtor’s) contingent assets. The courts below treated . . . (the debtor’s) subrogation right against . . . (its parent) as effectively valueless. It is obvious, however, that, holding a valid security interest in . . . (the parent’s) equipment as collateral for the $200,000 note, the Bank could expect to collect a substantial portion of its debt even if . . . (the parent) were insolvent. ... As subrogee, . . . (the debtor) was the successor to all of the Bank’s rights against . .. (the parent), including the Bank’s security interest in ... (the parent’s) equipment. . . . Accordingly, we must conclude that the bankruptcy judge’s finding, affirmed by Judge Elfvin, that . . . (the debtor’s) subrogation right against . . . (the parent) was of minimal worth is clearly erroneous.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Hemphill v. T & F Land Co. (In Re Hemphill)

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.