Smith v. Gilbert’s Empirical Analysis
1898
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2001 · most notably Artman v. Artman (1930), Collins v. Lewis (1930)
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 27 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 Stamford Bank v. Ferris · Easterly v. Goodwin
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““While it is unjust that one should keep from his creditors property whieh can be fairly sold or applied to the satisfaction of his debts, it is equally unjust that a creditor should seize and destroy an interest of his debtor whieh is so uncertain and contingent that it cannot be fairly sold or appraised. The policy of the law justifies the extension of the right of attachment to property which, though not strictly within the letter, is within the equity, of the statute. It does not justify such an extension of that right as will be likely to result in the destruction of a paternal gift whieh can be of no present value to any one, and may never be of value to the debtor or his assignees.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"We have, however, never held that an uncertain interest, incapable of just appraisal, and possibly of no value, may be thus sequestered for the creditor's doubtful benefit, and we think we ought not to so hold. When an interest which may be strictly neither goods nor land is nevertheless clearly property, capable of being fairly sold and appraised, which is subject to the debtor's control, and which ought to be responsible for his debts, we say that the policy of the State for two hundred and fifty years clearly indicates that such interest is attachable property within the meaning of the statute." id. p. 155.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“rendering liable to attachment certain legal and equitable interests in property, the absolute or legal title to which property is not in the debtor, but which interest is within his control and can be fairly appraised or sold. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.