Bowman v. Andres’s Empirical Analysis
76 F.2d 593 · 1935
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 1985
3 federal appellate ·
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 National Bank of Commerce of Kansas City, Mo. v. Rockefeller · Maxcy-Barton Organ Co. v. Glen Building Corp. · The Merritt · Premier & Potter Printing Press Co. v. Fuller · The Alta
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While it may be argued that a conditional sales contract is not a mortgage or bill of sale certainly the very purpose for which the statute pertaining to maritime property was enacted would be violated if no demands could attach as against a secret lien of this nature ... Under this law and under any reasonable construction of this United States Statute would it not have been possible for any judgment creditor, prior to .bankruptcy, to have effectively levied on this vessel under proper execution for any obligation of the Penglase Sand and Gravel Company? If such is the case, the trustee has exactly the same right. He takes his title as a judgment creditor armed with execution, and the lien insisted upon by and in the reclamation petition filed in this cause is of no avail as to third parties without notice under the statute, it is the opinion of the referee that such claim may be successfully resisted by the trustee in bankruptcy. [emphasis added]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Some time before the date of the transfer of title to the Wolverine from Dunlap to appellant, it became a “vessel of the United States.” The transfer from Dunlap to appellant was, by the laws of the United States ( 46 U.S.C. § 1012 ), invalid against any person other than the grant- or, his heirs, or devisees, or persons having actual notice thereof, until it was recorded in the office of the Collector of Customs at the home port of the vessel.”
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.