Hamilton Creek Metropolitan District v. Bondholders Colorado Bondshares’s Empirical Analysis
143 F.3d 1381 · 1998
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Bishop v. Equinox International Corp. (1998), In Re Ross (2006)
6 federal appellate · 5 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
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Ardestani v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Addison v. Holly Hill Fruit Products, Inc.
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In this case, there was evidence that the District’s interest obligations were arising, and would continue to arise, upon each semi-annual installment date. There was, however, no evidence of when the interest payments were or would be actually payable — no evidence of a date certain appointed for payment, and no evidence of when the bondholders expected or expect payment. On the contrary, the Plan’s adjustment of the District’s debts contemplated the possibility of little or no payment for years, and the possibility that the interest might never be fully paid. Thus, the District failed to marshal the necessary evidence to show that its interest payments were becoming or would become “due” under § 101(32)(C).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Chapter 9 does not offer relief to a municipality simply because it is economically distressed. Relief is only available if the debtor was ‘insolvent’.... ” (Doc. 23 at 22-23) (internal citations omitted). . The Ratepayers allege that the bankruptcy court erred in failing to distinguish warrants tainted by bribes, which the Ratepayers claim total $1.63 billion and are void ab initio, from legitimate warrants. (Doc. 1-7 at 12-13 ¶¶ 1, 5; doc. 23 at 7.) . The Ratepayers allege that the bankruptcy court”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"(C) with reference to a municipality, financial condition such that the municipality is — (i) generally not paying its debts as they become due unless such debts are the subject of a bona fide dispute; or (ii) unable to pay its debts as they become due.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Manalad
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.