116 Wash. App. 938 - Arreygue v. Lutz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “On similar facts, In re Beeney, 142 B.R. 360 (9th Cir.BAP1992) provides relevant Ninth Circuit authority. In that case, debtor Gary Beeney and appellant James Patronite were involved in an automobile accident. Mr. Beeney subsequently filed a petition under chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code and scheduled Mr. Patronite as one of his creditors. Like the Arreygues, Mr. Patronite waited to file his personal injury lawsuit until after Mr. Beeney received his chapter 7 discharge. At that time, Mr. Patronite sought to reopen Mr. Beeney's bankruptcy case so that the court could consider his request for relief from the permanent injunction of 11 U.S.C. § 524 . The bankruptcy court denied his motion to reopen the bankruptcy case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Arreygue v. Lutz

2. “Plaintiffs fully agree that they may not recover any funds from Defendants in excess of their insurance policy limits.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Arreygue v. Lutz