Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 90 F.2d 32 - Federal Housing v. Moore

Federal Housing v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

90 F.2d 32 · 1937

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
June 1983
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1983

8 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

150193719401950196019701980decided

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. § 104 · 12 U.S.C. § 1702 · 12 U.S.C. § 1703

Relies on Hirlinger v. Boyd

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

  1. “This contention cannot prevail. Appellant is not the United States. The United States is not a party to this proceeding. The bankrupt was never indebted to the United States. Its indebtedness was to the bank. The United States has no claim against the bankrupt estate, *Page 220 and has asserted none. If the United States had any such claim, it could, and undoubtedly would, assert it in its own name. There is no reason why, in a bankruptcy court or elsewhere, the United States should call itself `Federal Housing Administrator.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Appellant (F. H. Adm’r) was never a creditor of the bankrupt and has no claim against the bankrupt estate except that which the bank assigned to • him after the adjudication in bankruptcy. With respect to that claim, appellant has, of course, only such rights as his assignor had. * * * appellant’s assignor had no right of priority.””
    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.