In Re Sutton’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably Killebrew v. Brewer (1989), Woods v. Kenan (1999)
1 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
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 522 · 11 U.S.C. § 541 · 11 U.S.C. § 554
Relies on Vasilion v. Vasilion · Dushane v. Beall · Greenblatt v. Ford · Spalding v. Dickinson · In Re Polumbo
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] bankruptcy court exercises equitable powers and ... should emphasize substance and not technical considerations that will prevent substantial justice.... [C]ounsel neglect or mistake ... may be a factor in the finding of 'other cause' " under § 350(b) (citations and internal quotes omitted)). The issue of the propriety of Rule 60(b) relief, however, requires a more searching analysis. Rule 60(b) provides in relevant part: 27 On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence ...; (3) fraud ..., misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. 28 Although the bankruptcy court did not specify by number which subsections of Rule 60(b) grounded its decision, it apparently relied on subsections (1) (based on "mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Woods v. Kenan“[o]n motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Woods v. Kenan
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.