In Re Messing’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 522 · 26 U.S.C. § 401 (Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act of 1962) · 26 U.S.C. § 403 · 26 U.S.C. § 408 (§ 2002 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 26 U.S.C. § 410 (§ 1011 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 28 U.S.C. § 157 · 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. · United States v. Turkette · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Massachusetts · Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc. · Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he common thread running through each [circuit] appears to be the reliance on legislative history as conclusive of a congressional intent that ERISA not be included as 'other Federal law’ embodied within § 522(b)(2)(A). To this court the clear language of § 522(b)(2)(A) belies such an interpretation. Further, it appears that the Supreme Court in Mackey has expressly characterized ERISA § 206(d)(1) as a federal exemption.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Matter of Lee
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.