Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 131 SCT 2594 - Stern v. Marshall

Stern v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis

2011

Citation profile

1,167
cited by 1,167 later decisions
12
cited 12 times by the Supreme Court
13
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

116 federal appellate · 58 district · 20 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedMarshall v. Marshall (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 11 U.S.C. § 501 · 11 U.S.C. § 523 · 28 U.S.C. § 152 · 28 U.S.C. § 157 · 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 3612 (§ 812 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968)) · 49 U.S.C. § 10704 · 7 U.S.C. § 18

Relies on Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Crowell v. Benson · Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg · Thomas v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co. · Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor

Cited together with Turner v. Rogers · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg · Stern v. Marshall · Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly

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 1,167 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Congress may not bypass Article III simply because a proceeding may have some bearing on a bankruptcy case; the question is whether the action at issue stems from the bankruptcy itself or would necessarily be resolved in the claims allowance process.”
    18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “counterclaims by the estate against persons filing claims against the estate”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[W]e think it proper to state that we do not consider congress can either withdraw from judicial cognizance any matter which, from its nature, is the subject of a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty; nor, on the other hand, can it [Congress] bring under the judicial power a matter which, from its nature, is not a subject for judicial determination.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.