Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 90 U.S. 128 - Ray v. Norseworthy

Ray v. Norseworthy’s Empirical Analysis

90 U.S. 128 · 1874

Citation profile

120
cited by 120 later decisions
17
cited 17 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
September 2015
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 19 district · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 120 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2015 · most notably Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co. (1974), Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford (1935)

31 federal appellate · 19 district · 15 state decisions

290187418801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Smith v. Adsit

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

  1. “Secured creditors in such a proceeding must have due opportunity to defend their interests and consequently must be properly notified and summoned to appear for that purpose. [[Image here]] Concede to the fullest extent the powers of the bankrupt court to do everything specified in the Bankrupt Act, still it is clear that the mortgage and privilege of the petitioner could not be canceled and displaced without notice nor without an opportunity to be heard, nor could the proceeds of the sale be adjudged to a junior mortgagee with or without notice, unless for some cause other than what is dis closed in the record. [Footnote omitted.] Notice in some form must be given in all cases, else the judgment, order, or decree will not conclude the party whose rights of property would otherwise be divested by the proceeding. [Footnote omitted.] No man is to be condemned without the opportunity to make a defence, or to have his property taken from him by a judicial sentence without the privilege of showing, if he can, that the pretext for doing it is unfounded.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““No man is io be condemned without an opportunity to be heard, nor is there any well-considered case which gives support to the proposition that a judgment, order, sentence, or decree disposing oí property subject to conflicting claims will affect the rights of any one not a party to the proceedings.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “mortgaged premises to be sold, and directed that the mortgages should be canceled and that the property should be sold free from incumbrance, rendering to the parties interested their respective priorities in the proceeds[.]”
    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.