Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 59 F.2d 969 - Vass v. Conron Bros.

Vass v. Conron Bros.’s Empirical Analysis

59 F.2d 969 · 1932

Citation profile

85
cited by 85 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

33 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 85 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2018 · most notably Reading Company v. Brown (1968), Allard v. Weitzman (1993)

33 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions

190193219401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 125

Relies on Barton v. Barbour · Riehle v. Margolies · Porter v. Sabin · Murphy v. John Hofman Co. · Nielsen v. Johnson

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

  1. “[m]erely to hold matters in the status quo; to mark time, as it were; to do only what is necessary to hold the assets intact; such activities are not a continuance of the business.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “as much a part of the usual administration in bankruptcy, as that of the pay of accountants, custodians or other assistants, employed by the trustee.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]rustees in bankruptcy ... may be sued by their title, and judgments against [them] bind the assets. * -H sfc A trustee is equally an officer of the court (Bankr.Act § 33 [ 11 U.S.C.A. § 61 ]); and his possession is protected because it is the court’s; quite like a receiver’s. If so, and if, as is the case, it is an interference with a receiver’s custody to establish claims against him by judgment, it is difficult to see why the same should not hold of a trustee.”
    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.