In Re: Continental Airlines, Debtor. Air Line Pilots Association v. Continental Airlines, Lpp Effective Date Committee, Honorable John Stonitsch, Trustee. Lpp No. 96-7028 . In Re: Continental Airlines, Debtor. Air Line Pilots Association v. Continental Airlines, LLP Effective Date Committee, Honorable John Stonitsch, Trustee. Continental Airlines, Inc., No. 96-7038’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably In Re: Luisa Anes (1999), Kiwi International Air Lines Inc 02-1037 v. 02-1038 (2003)
6 district · 1 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. § 1113 · 11 U.S.C. § 362 · 11 U.S.C. § 524
Relies on Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co. · Elgin Ry Co v. Burley · Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co. · Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare v. Davenport · Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local No. 391 v. Terry
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured; or (B) right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance if such breach gives rise to a right to payment, whether or not such right to an equitable remedy is reduced to judgment, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, secured, or unsecured....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) The debtor in possession, or the trustee if one has been appointed under the provisions of this chapter, other than a trustee in a case covered by subchapter IV of this chapter and by title I of the Railway Labor Act, may assume or reject a collective bargaining agreement only in accordance with the provisions of this section. (b)(1) Subsequent to filing a petition and prior to filing an application seeking rejection of a collective bargaining agreement, the debt- or in possession or trustee (hereinafter in this section, “trustee" shall include a debtor in possession), shall— (A) make a proposal to the authorized representative of the employees covered by such agreement, based on the most complete and reliable information available at the time of such proposal, which provides for those necessary modifications in the employees benefits and protections that are necessary to permit the reorganization of the debtor and assures that all creditors, the debtor and all of the affected parties are treated fairly and equitably; and (B) provide, subject to subsection (d)(3), the representative of the employees with such relevant information as is necessary to evaluate the proposal. (2) During the period beginning on the date of the making of a proposal provided for in paragraph (1) and ending on the date of the hearing provided for in subsection (d)(1), the trustee shall meet, at reasonable times, with the authorized representative to confer in good faith in attempting to reach mutu”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Moreover, we are convinced that the particular circumstances of this case might make the enforcement of the equitable remedy of seniority integration impractical such that an alternative money damage award would be appropriate. The seniority integration sought by the [Claimants] could potentially result in the displacement of many Continental pilots. Such displacement has the potential to create an environment rife with hostility and low employee morale, not to mention a detrimental effect on employer-employee relations. The circumstances indicate that seniority integration would not be a feasible remedy and that an alternative remedy of monetary damages would be appropriate. Therefore, we conclude that the right to seniority integration gives rise to a “right of'payment” such that the remedy constitutes a “claim” dischargeable in bankruptcy.”
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.