In Re Hunter’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably Beezley v. California Land Title Co. (1993), Stone v. Caplan (1994)
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 · 11 U.S.C. § 727
Relies on Birkett v. Columbia Bank · Stark v. St. Mary's Hospital · Rosinski v. Boyd · In Re Mendiola · In Re Anderson
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“reopening the case merely to schedule [an omitted] debt is for all practical purposes a useless gesture.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“A discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727 discharges every prepetition debt, without regard to whether a proof of claim has been filed, unless that debt is specifically excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523 . Section 523(a)(3) contains the only exceptions for unlisted and unscheduled debts. Section 523(a)(3)(B) excepts from discharge those debts originally incurred by means of fraud, false pretenses, or malicious conduct, as enumerated in §§ 523(a)(2), (4), and (6), (hereinafter “fraudulent” or “fraudulently incurred” debts). Section 523(a)(3)(A) excepts from discharge all other debts-ie., debts other than those fraudulent debts specified in § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6)-which are not listed by the debtor in his petition and schedules in time for the creditor to file a timely proof of claim. However, even 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an unscheduled debt from discharge if the creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy ease in time for timely filing of a proof of claim. In a Chapter 7 no-asset ease the court does not set a deadline for the filing of proofs of claim. Rather, the court may notify creditors that there are no assets, that it is not necessary to file claims, and that if sufficient assets become available for payment of a dividend, further notice will be given for filing of claims. See Fed. R. Bankr.P. 2002(e). Therefore, there is no date by which a proof of claim must be filed to be “timely,” and whenever a creditor receives notice or knowledge of the bank”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Zirnhelt v. Madaj
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.