Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 98 F.2d 703 - In re Hammond

In re Hammond’s Empirical Analysis

98 F.2d 703 · 1938

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
5
states following
January 2011
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently January 2011 · most notably Meyer v. Rigdon (1994), Carlisle Cashway, Inc. v. Johnson (1982)

11 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 state decisions

180193819401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Davis v. Aetna Acceptance Co. · Irving Trust Company v. Bowditch · Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. v. Herbst · Irving Trust Co. v. Deutsch · In re Bernard

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

  1. ““a. A discharge in bankruptcy shall release a bankrupt from all of his provable debts, whether allowable in full or in part, except such as . (4) were created by his fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation or defalcation while acting as an officer or in any fiduciary capacity . . . .””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It can scarcely be doubted . . . that a director [is a fiduciary].”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Implicit in [the debtor’s] argument is the assumption that Hammond did not know, and is not chargeable with knowing, the rule of law forbidding him to take over for his own profit a contract of a solvent corporation, even when the corporation is financially unable to perform it. But this assumption is unwarranted; he is chargeable with knowledge of the law. The character of the liability imposed upon a fiduciary for appropriating property of his ces-tui in violation of his duty is the same whether he has actual knowledge that the law imposes the duty or is merely charged with such knowledge. In either event the appropriation is intentional and, since it is unlawful, it is such a “misappropriation” as, in our opinion, excepts the liability from release by a discharge in bankruptcy.”
    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.