In re Taub’s Empirical Analysis
98 F.2d 81 · 1938
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently July 1992 · most notably Bank of India v. Sapru (In Re Sapru) (1991), In the Matter of Jack Robinson, Bankrupt (1974)
12 federal appellate · 1 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 Lerner v. First Wis. Nat. Bank of Milwaukee · In re Messinger · Feynman v. Rosenthal · In re Carter · Northeastern Real Estate Securities Corp. v. Goldstein
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The mere omission of property from the schedules, or the failure to include a creditor, does not necessarily establish a fraudulent intent upon the part of the bankrupt ... In the absence of clear proof of fraudulent intent, we do not think a bankrupt should be denied his discharge ...”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The first question is the propriety of allowing the amendment after the time for filing specifications of objection had passed. Since the specification without the amendment presented no valid objection to the discharge, the appellant argues that the amendment adds a new objection and in effect extends the time for filing specifications beyond the return day, in violation of General Order 32, as amended in 1933, 11 U.S.C.A. following section 53; Lerner v. First Wisconsin Nat. Bank, 294 U.S. 116 , 55 S.Ct. 360 , 79 L.Ed. 796 . This contention is unsound. The amendment did not present a new ground of objection; it merely cured a defective statement of the old objection and conformed it to the statutory requirements. It caused neither delay nor surprise to the bankrupt. The district judge was clearly correct in allowing it. Northeastern Real Estate Securities Corp. v. Goldstein, 2 Cir., 91 F.2d 942 ; In re Weston, 2 Cir., 206 F. 281 ; In re Knaszak, D.C., 151 F. 503 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Leach“[l]ack of value in the property omitted from the schedules tends to negative fraudulent intent”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.