Irving Trust Co. v. Fleming’s Empirical Analysis
73 F.2d 423 · 1934
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 2014
6 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
Relies on Isaacs v. Hobbs Tie & Timber Co. · Straton v. New · Covell v. Heyman · Riehle v. Margolies · Taubel-Scott-Kitzmiller Co. v. Fox
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The plea to the jurisdiction as to the Blue River Company is sustained in the following particulars: “1. As to the franchise and rights of the Blue River Company as a corporation. “2. To the Dredge boat, which was in the possession of the Blue River Company at the date of the filing of the petition in bankruptcy and to which for that reason summary jurisdiction does not attach. “3. To any property of the Blue River Company which is not described either directly or indirectly in the lease from the Tiger Placers Company to the Blue River Company, dated August 13, 1937. “4. To the real property upon which the dredge boat is actually now floating, whether the same is, or is not covered by the lease agreement of August 13, 1937, for the reason that that limited area of ground was in the actual possession of the Blue River Company, connected with its actual possession of the dredge boat. “The pleas to the jurisdiction of the Blue River Company as to all other property which it claims to have acquired from the bankrupt company or the Tiger Placers Company ought to be overruled and denied, for the reason that that property was not, at the date of the filing of the petition in bankruptcy, in the possession of the Blue River Company, but is in the possession of the bankrupt and/ or its subsidiary. “Any claim to that property which the Blue River Company claims against the creditors of the bankrupt is colorable and invalid. “The petition of the trustee for the ‘Turn Over’ order against”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fish v. East
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.