Danish v. Sofranski’s Empirical Analysis
93 F.2d 424 · 1937
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1984
6 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 Oriel v. Russell · Cooper v. Dasher · In re Stavrahn · In re H. Magen Co. · In re Schoenberg
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Again' — and this is by far the most common situation — the respondent may steadfastly deny that he has ever received any of the property at all. Sometimes he does this upon the proceeding to punish him for contempt. That is necessarily, an unsuccessful excuse, because it disputes the finding in the summary order, which, since Oriel v. Russell, 278 U.S. 358 , 49 S.Ct. 173 , 73 L.Ed. 419 , is an estoppel. It is uniformly held that in this situation he stands charged and must explain how he disposed of it. In re Stavrahn, 174 F. 330 , 20 Ann. Cas. 888 (C.C.A.2) ; In re Graning, 229 F. 370 , Ann.Cas.1917B, 1094 (C.C.A.2); In re Siegler, 31 F.2d 972 (C.C.A.2); Sarkes v. Wells, 37 F.2d 339 (C.C.A.6). At other times in the summary proceeding itself, the respondent either denies having ever received the property or refuses to give any explanation; and then too the trustee need not prove his ability to comply; the burden of explanation is the respondent’s. In re D. Levy & Co., 142 F. 442 (C.C.A.2) ; In re Weinreb, 146 F. 243 (C.C.A.2) ; In re Chavkin, 249 F. 342 (C.C.A.2); Dittmar v. Michelson, 281 F. 116 (C.C.A.3) ; In re Magen Co., 10 F.2d 91 (C.C.A.2); In re Cohan, 41 F.2d 632 (C.C.A.3); In re Steinreich Associates, 83 F.2d 254 (C.C.A.2). The ground for this has never been stated, but a valid explanation is that, as the supposed excuse would contradict his denial, it may be assumed that he would not make it; and that his refusal to answer, when he so refuses, may be assumed to co”
2 later decisions 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.