in Re Sheldon Baroff’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2019 · most notably Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2007), Hashemi American Express Travel Related Services Company Inc v. Hashemi (1996)
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 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
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 523
Relies on 22 Cal. 3d 718 - Stout v. Turney · In Re Tucson Estates · Johnson v. Righetti · Collingwood Grain, Inc. v. Coast Trading Co. · Fobian v. Western Farm Credit Bank
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]e will not disturb a bankruptcy court's award of attorneys' fees unless the bankruptcy court abused its discretion or erroneously applied the law.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wesley Higgins Arlene Higgins Bert Vincent Leora Vincent, and Vortex Lures Lp Viking Lures Mfg Inc. Witchcraft Tape Products Inc. Mesch Clark & Rothschild, Pc Rodger Ford Amy Ford v. Vortex Fishing Systems, Inc., and Vortex Fishing Systems, Inc., Debtor. Wesley Higgins Arlene Higgins Bert Vincent Leora Vincent, and Vortex Lures Lp Viking Lures Mfg Inc. Witchcraft Tape Products Inc. Mesch Clark & Rothschild, Pc Rodger Ford Amy Ford v. Vortex Fishing Systems, Inc., and Vortex Fishing Systems, Inc., Debtor · Galam v. Carmel“determine the enforceability of the ... agreement to determine dischargeability,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In light of our precedents, we are persuaded that the action underlying Bos's fee request-the nondischargeability proceeding that began in bankruptcy court-was not an action "on a contract" within the meaning of section 1717. As the parties agree, "[t]here was no 'breach of contract' claim in the Trust Funds' adversary complaint." The nondischargeability proceeding arose entirely under the federal Bankruptcy Code, and in no way required the bankruptcy court to determine whether or to what extent the Trust Agreements or the Note were enforceable against Bos, or whether Bos had violated their terms. Those questions had been answered in arbitration, and confirmed by a State Court; indeed, in the nondischargeability action Bos conceded that such contracts were valid and that he had breached them. The litigation from that point forward asked only whether federal bankruptcy law forbade Bos from discharging the debts everyone agreed he owed to the Funds. Such litigation is collateral to a contract rather than "on a contract," and as a consequence Bos may not use section 1717 to recover the fees he incurred in pursuing it.”
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.