Donaldson v. Bernstein’s Empirical Analysis
104 F.3d 547 · 1997
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 18 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 168 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Browning Manufacturing v. Mims (In Re Coastal Plains, Inc.) (1999), Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (2001)
25 federal appellate · 18 district · 6 state decisions
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 Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. Haslip · Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca · Pacor Inc. v. Higgins · McNamara v. County of San Diego Department of Social Services · Oneida Motor Freight, Inc. v. United Jersey
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 168 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“could conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] confirmation order is res judicata as to all issues decided or which could have been decided at the hearing on confirmation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In reaching our result on the jurisdictional issues we have not lost sight of the theme which recurs in the reported opinions that the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts must be confined within appropriate limits and does not extend indefinitely, particularly after the confirmation of a plan and the closing of a case. We are in full accord with that approach and indeed have expressed similar reservations regarding a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction in other contexts. Yet we recognize, ..., that in an “analysis of the impact of a confirmed plan of reorganization upon a subsequent conversion to Chapter 7 ... much depends on procedural nuances.” Here, we are satisfied for the reasons we have expressed that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction in these proceedings. We predicate our conclusion, however, on the unusual "procedural nuances” here so our opinion should not be used as authority in circumstances in which it cannot be applied reasonably. Different "nuances” might bring a different conclusion.”
2 later decisions 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.