Belcufine’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 5 state decisions

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

1. “28 U.S.C. § 1452 ... specifically authorizes the removal of most claims or actions over which the district court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 . In Pacor, we said that "sections 1441-1447 were never meant to be read into the procedures for bankruptcy removals.” 743 F.2d at 992 . However, in Things Remembered, Inc., v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127 , 116 S.Ct. 494, 497 , 133 L.Ed.2d 461 (1995), the Supreme Court held that the procedural requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (d) apply to a case that is removed under the special bankruptcy removal provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1452 , that the defendants utilized here.... Consequently, if the reasoning of Things Remembered applies to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (b), [which requires original jurisdiction for removal] as well as 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), the former provision applies in this case. To read Sections 1452 and 1441(b) as working in conjunction would provide plaintiffs in "related to,” but not "arising under,” cases with greater control over the choice of forum than defendants. Cf. Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Daniel J. Meltzer and David L. Shapiro, The Federal Courts and the Federal System 1616 (1996) (noting, in the context of removal, that there are a number of federal statutes under which defendants are denied the choice of forum given to plaintiffs). Under such a system, a state law claim that was "related to,” but not "arising under,” a title 11 proceeding, could be brought by the plaintiff in a state court of the state i”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 157 F. Supp. 2d 542 - Shubert v. Roche Holding Ag · Belcufine v. Aloe

2. “[¡Includes every person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, receiver or other officer of a court of this Commonwealth and any agent or officer of any of the above-mentioned classes employing any person in this Commonwealth.” 43 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 260.2a (emphasis added). For a determination that Ms. Strein was such a qualifying officer,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 23 F. Supp. 3d 494 - Accurso v. Infra-Red Services, Inc. · Belcufine v. Aloe

3. “[g]iven that the purpose of the WPCL is to deter managers from strategically diverting company resources away from the payment of wages and benefits, it makes sense for the WPCL to apply in only those contexts in which the managers have room to behave strategically.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Leonard v. McMorris · Belcufine v. Aloe