Engstrom v. De Vos’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently June 1987
9 federal appellate · 4 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
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 701
Relies on Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford · Continental Illinois Nat Bank Trust Co of Chicago v. Chicago R I & P Ry Co · Wright v. Vinton Branch of Mountain Trust Bank · Wright v. Union Central Life Insurance · Van Huffel v. Harkelrode
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A receiver or trustee may, within two years subsequent to the date of adjudication or within such further period of time as the Federal or State law may permit, institute proceedings in behalf of the estate upon any claim against which the period of limitation fixed by Federal or State law had not expired at the time of the filing of the petition in bankruptcy.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Any preference made or suffered within four months before the date of application for the appointment of a receiver may be avoided and the property or its value recovered by such receiver, if the person receiving the preference or to be benefited thereby or his agent acting therein shall then have reasonable cause to believe that the debtor corporation is insolvent. No preference made or suffered prior to such four months' period may be recovered, and all provisions of law or of the trust fund doctrine permitting recovery of any preference made beyond such four months' period are hereby specifically superseded.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[The] broad power of Congress, when it comes into conflict with State law, is not limited to the procedural field. It may, and, in practice, frequently does, affect substantive rights as well. 18 * * * * * * 19 "It is my conclusion, therefore, that by the enactment of Section 11, sub. e, of the Chandler Act, Congress undertook to supersede a state statute of limitations in a case such as the one now before me, regardless of whether the limitation would bar the remedy or the right and that in so doing, Congress did not exceed the power conferred upon it by the bankruptcy provisions of the Constitution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dower v. Bomar
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.