Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 140 BR 728 - In Re Earl

In Re Earl’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
January 2015
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently January 2015 · most notably Robert Casse Robert Casse v. Key Bank National Association (1999), Leavitt v. Soto (In Re Leavitt) (1997)

1 federal appellate · 3 district ·

190199220002010decided

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. § 105 · 11 U.S.C. § 109 · 11 U.S.C. § 1307 · 11 U.S.C. § 349 · 11 U.S.C. § 362 · 28 U.S.C. § 157 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 1927

Relies on Johnson v. Home State Bank · Norwest Bank Worthington v. Ahlers · United States v. New York Telephone Co. · ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish · United States v. Smith

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

  1. “The court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title. No provision of this title providing for the raising of an issue by a party in interest shall be construed to preclude the court from, sua sponte, taking any action or making any determination necessary or appropriate to enforce or implement court orders or rules, or to prevent an abuse of process.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “even assuming arguendo, (without so concluding), that the Frieouf Court is correct and that 349(a) does not permit a dismissal that prohibits the filing of a new case, except as expressly provided in 109(g), the Court nevertheless concludes that 105 empowers this Court to enjoin future filings to prevent abuse of the bankruptcy process.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “to cover any powers traditionally exercised by a bankruptcy court that are not encompassed by the All Writs Statute.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.