In re Hammond’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 4 district ·

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

1. “The jurisdiction of State courts to try controversies between the trustees of bankrupt estates and parties claiming adverse interest is not in any way interfered with. “Suits by the trustee shall only be brought in the courts where the bankrupt might have brought them' except for the misfortune of his bankruptcy, unless by the consent of the proposed defendant. “Under the last bankruptcy law the litigation incident to the settlement of estates was conducted almost wholly in United States courts. The result was great inconvenience and much expense to a majority of the people interested in such litigation as principals, witnesses, and attorneys. Such will not be the effect under this bill. It is proper that such should not be the case, speaking generally, in behalf of the administration of justice.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Williams v. Austrian

2. ““Tlie United States circuit courts shall have jurisdiction of all controversies at law and in equity, as distinguished from proceedings in bankruptcy, between trustees as such and adverse claimants concerning the property acquired or claimed by the trustees, in the same manner and to the same extent only as though bankruptcy proceedings bad not been instituted and such controversies had been between the bankrupts and such adverse claimants.” Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 552 |U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 34:511.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hatch v. Curtin

3. “' “The assignee in insolvency does not take the title to property which can be attached as the property of the bankrupt, where the attachment can be upheld only through an estoppel in favor of a particular attaching creditor existing against the true owner of the property. ‘This - was not property which could be taken on execution by creditors generally, but only by creditors without notice.’ Low v. Welch, 139 Mass. 34 , 29 N. E. 217 . See Lowell, Bankr. § 349.””

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