In re Reiter’s Empirical Analysis
58 F.2d 631 · 1932
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently February 1998
10 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
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 110
Relies on Daniel Holden v. J a Stratton · Cohen v. Samuels · Cohn v. Malone · 8 E.H. Smith 423 - In Re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Moehring · In re Messinger
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.
““The weight of authority is in accord. The Eighth Circuit (In re Orear [C. C. A.] 189 F. 888 ) so construed a Missouri statute (section 5981, Mo. Rev. St. 1879), which said nothing about change of beneficiary, holding that it applied in spite of the reservation of such a power; and in Jens v. Davis (C. C. A.) 280 F. 706 , it reached the same result under a similar Iowa statute (section 1805, Iowa Code 1897). However, in Aberle v. McQuaid (C. C. A.) 283 F. 779 , it took the opposite view of a Minnesota statute (Gen. St. 1913, §§ 3465, 3466); though this curiously enough expressly mentioned reserved powers to revoke, and was for that reason stronger for the beneficiary than either of the earlier. However, in Ralph v. Cox (C. C. A.) 1 F.(2d) 435 , Aberle v. McQuaid, was overruled, because meanwhile the state court had taken a different view. Murphy v. Casey, 150 Minn. 107 , 184 N. W. 783 . The Third Circuit (Smith v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. [C. C. A.] 43 F.(2d) 74 ), following New Jersey decisions (Farmer, etc., Co. v. Albright, 90 N. J. Eq. 132 , 106 A. 545 ; Merchants’, etc., Co. v. Borland, 53 N. J. Eq. 282 , 31 A. 272 ), which had so construed a New Jersey statute (sections 38, 39 of the New Jersey Insurance Law [2 Comp. St. 1910, p. 2850, §§ 38, 39]), held the policy exempt, though the statute was silent as to powers to revoke.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harrison v. Miller
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.