Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 88 FSUPP 874 - In Re Etherton

In Re Etherton’s Empirical Analysis

1950

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
August 1990
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently August 1990

11 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

7019501960197019801990decided

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. § 107 · 11 U.S.C. § 110 · 11 U.S.C. § 722

Relies on Thompson v. Magnolia Petroleum Co. · Isaacs v. Hobbs Tie & Timber Co. · Gardner v. State of New Jersey · United States Nat Bank in Johnstown v. Chase Nat Bank of New York City · Dillon v. Board of Pension Commissioners

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

  1. ““The court in bankruptcy could allow the claimant to proceed with foreclosure. He did not apply for such permission. Instead, he chose the alternative of bringing the lien to the attention of the bankruptcy court by asserting it as a secured claim. The bankruptcy court being a court of equity, it was its duty, if the claimant had chosen the wrong remedy, to tell him, ‘This is the wrong way to proceed. You had better apply for permission to sue.’ “The estate would not have benefited by a foreclosure suit, which would have only added to the costs of administration. Therefore, when the lien-claimant filed his claim, he gave notice to the bankruptcy court that he was claiming the benefit of his lien. The bankruptcy court, being an equity court, should not have rejected his claim, merely because he had chosen the wrong way of calling it to the court’s attention. The claimant should not have been penalized and deprived of a statutory and constitutional lien because of erroneously chosen procedure. More, I know of no other way in which he could have brought the fact to the attention of the court, except by seeking permission to sue.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The Referee was required to consider the filing of the claim as an application for whatever relief the claimant was entitled to, — whether it be permission to sue [for enforcement] or allowance of petition for adjudication of the claim. The filing of the claim was just as effective, to require the referee to pass on it, as any formal petition.”
    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.