Meehan v. Wallace’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 1 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(c) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, an interest of the debtor in property becomes property of the estate under subsection (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a) (5) of this section notwithstanding any provision in an agreement, transfer instrument, or applicable nonbankruptcy law- (A) that restricts or conditions transfer of such interest by the debtor; or (B) that is conditioned on the insolvency or financial condition of the debtor, on the commencement of a case under this title, or on the appointment of or taking possession by a trustee in a case under this title or a custodian before such commencement, and that effects or gives an option to effect a forfeiture, modification, or termination of the debtor’s interest in property. (2) A restriction on the transfer of a beneficial interest of the debtor in a trust that is enforceable under applicable nonbankruptcy law is enforceable in a case under this title.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McFarland v. Wallace (In re McFarland)

2. “In Whetzal v. Alderson, 32 F.3d 1302 (8th Cir.1994), the Eighth Circuit held that a debtor’s interest in his civil service retirement benefits was excluded from his bankruptcy estate under § 541(c)(2) because of the statutory restriction on alienation contained in 5 U.S.C. § 8346 (a). As in this ease, the restriction on transfer was contained in the statute, as neither the Whet-zel opinion nor the statute indicates that there would be a plan document.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Zott

3. “The Fourth Circuit stated that the district court’s “focus on state spendthrift trust law, which looks to the reality behind the non-alienation provision, is misplaced.” ... The Fourth Circuit explained that because “ERISA requires a plan to have a non-alienation provision, ... no more inquiry need be made to determine whether the trust is controlled by the settlor or the beneficiary, or whether they are the same person.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re McBride