Downs v. Cooper /’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 33 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 189 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably In Re: Daniel Fordu, Debtor. Harold A. Corzin v. Julie A. Fordu (1999), In Re Dow Corning Corporation (2002)
16 federal appellate · 33 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 Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · Chambers v. Nasco, Inc. · Soberon v. United States · Needler v. Valley National Bank of Arizona · State v. Simpson
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 189 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) DISCLOSURE OF COMPENSATION PAID OR PROMISED TO ATTORNEY FOR DEBTOR. Every attorney for a debtor, whether or not the attorney applies for compensation, shall file and transmit to the United States trustee within 15 days after the order for relief, or at another time as the court may direct, the statement required by § 329 of the Code including whether the attorney has shared or agreed to share the compensation with any other entity. The statement shall include the particulars of any such sharing or agreement to share by the attorney, but the details of any agreement for the sharing of the compensation with a member or regular associate of the attorney’s law firm shall not be required. A supplemental statement shall be filed and transmitted to the United States trustee within 15 days after any payment or agreement not previously disclosed.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Marin · In Re Valladares“(a) Any attorney representing a debtor in a case under this title ... shall file with the court a statement of the compensation paid or agreed to be paid ... for services rendered or to be rendered in contemplation of or in connection with the case by such attorney, and the source of such compensation. (b) If such compensation exceeds the reasonable value of any such services, the court may cancel any such agreement, or order the return of any such payment, to the extent excessive, to — (1) the estate ...; or (2) the entity that made such payment.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) Bankruptcy courts have a “great deal of latitude in fashioning an appropriate sanction.” Id. at 478. (2) “When a bankruptcy court metes out a sanction, it must exercise such power with restraint and discretion.” “The sanctioned levied must thus be commensurate with the egregiousness of the conduct.” Id. (3) Although, a mere “technical breach” does not call for the denial of all fees, when an attorney “exhibits a willful disregard of his fiduciary obligations to fully disclose the nature and circumstances of his fee arrangement under § 329 and Rule 2016,” the only proper sanction is the complete denial of all fees. (4) Normally, the sanction for an attorney’s failure to disclose his fee arrangement under § 329 and Bankruptcy Rule 2016 is the denial of all fees. Id. at 478.”
5 later decisions 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.