Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 104 F.3d 688 - Williams v. Peyton

Williams v. Peyton’s Empirical Analysis

104 F.3d 688 · 1997

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
September 2016
most recently cited

2 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2016 · most notably Schwab v. Reilly (2010), Basith v. Cook County (2001)

2 federal appellate ·

160199720002010decided

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 Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz · Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona · Vasilion v. Vasilion · Hyman v. Plotkin · Sumy v. Schlossberg

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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Here, although Williams claimed an exemption for her $48,600 interest in the real estate, she exempted that interest only from the claims of her non-joint creditors, and not from the claims of her joint creditors. Williams specifically claimed that the statutory basis for her exemption was section 522(b)(2)(B). J.A. at 7. Section 522(b)(2)(B) provides that a debtor may exempt from the bankruptcy estate “any interest in property in which the debtor had, immediately before the commencement of the case, an interest as a tenant by the entirety.” However, such exemption may be taken only “to the extent that such interest as a tenant by the entirety ... is exempt from process under applicable non-bankruptcy law.” Id. Virginia law, which is the “applicable nonbankruptcy law” in this case, provides that property held by spouses as tenants by the entirety is exempt from individual (i.e., non-joint) creditors, but is not exempt from the claims of joint creditors. Vasilion v. Vasilion, 192 Va. 735 , 66 S.E.2d 599, 602 (1951); Hausman v. Hausman, 233 Va. 1 , 353 S.E.2d 710, 711 (1987).[ FN4 ]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In Taylor , the Court held that a trustee is required to object within 30 days, under section 522(i) and Rule 4003(b), after a debtor claims an exemption of property from the bankruptcy estate for which she is not legally entitled, and that the trustee forfeits his right to later contest the exemption by failing to object. Id. at 643-44 , 112 S.Ct. at 1648 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[B]y specifically claiming an exemption under section 522(b)(2)(B), Williams merely claimed an exemption to which she was entitled — the exemption of her tenancy by the entirety from the claims of her non-joint creditors. Taylor does not purport to require a trustee to object to a claimed exemption to which the debtor is fully entitled.”
    1 later decision 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.