Dutcher v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 federal appellate · 29 district · 31 state decisions

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

1. ““ ‘Insolvency,’ in the sense of the bankrupt act, means that the party whose business affairs are in question is unable to pay his debts as they become due, in the ordinary course of his daily transactions.” Wager v. Hall, 16 Wall. 584 , 599, 21 L. Ed. 504 ; Toof v. Martin, 13 Wall. 40 , 47, 20 L. Ed. 481 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Eggert · Cincinnati Equipment Co. v. Degnan

2. “« * * * it is a general rule, that where the computation is to be made from an act done, the day on which the act is done is to be included.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Vandegrift v. United States · 24 F. Supp. 229 - United States v. Barber

3. ““Nothing remains, therefore, to be re-examined, except the issue whether the respondents had reasonable cause to believe that the mortgagor was insolvent, and that the conveyance was made in fraud of the provisions of the bankrupt act. Proof that the respondents had actual knowledge that the mortgagor was insolvent at the time is not required to support the prayer for relief, but the allegation in that behalf is sustained if it appears that they had reasonable cause for such belief, as that is the language of the bankrupt act. Actual knowledge of the alleged fact is not made the criterion of proof in such an issue, nor is it necessary that it should appear that the respondents actually believed that the mortgagor was insolvent, but the true inquiry is whether they, as business men acting with ordinary prudence, sagacity, and discretion, had reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was insolvent, in view of all the facts and circumstances known to them at the time the conveyance was made. Unless the debtor was in fact insolvent, it cannot be held that such a grantee had reasonable cause to believe the allegation, but if it appears that the debtor was in fact insolvent as alleged, and that the means of knowledge were at hand, and that such facts and circumstances were known to the grantee as were clearly sufficient, to put a person of ordinary prudence and discretion upon inquiry, it is well settled that it would be his duty to make all such reasonable inquiries to ascertain”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Eggert