In Re Witwer’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently August 2013 · most notably In Re Hall (1993), First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan (In Re Kaplan) (1993)
5 federal appellate · 2 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. § 522 · 11 U.S.C. § 541 · 26 U.S.C. § 401 (Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act of 1962) · 26 U.S.C. § 414 (§ 1015 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (§ 206 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1103 (§ 403 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. · Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington · Bibby v. United States · Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank · Patterson v. Shumate
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) As used in this section, “private retirement plan” means: (3) Self-employed retirement plans and individual retirement annuities or accounts provided for in the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as amended, to the extent the amounts held in the plans, annuities, or accounts do not exceed the maximum amounts exempt from federal income taxation under that code.... (e) Notwithstanding subdivision (b) and (d) ... the amounts described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) are exempt only to the extent necessary to provide for the support of the judgment debtor when the judgment debtor retires and for the support of the spouse and dependents of the judgment debtor, taking into account all resources that are likely to be available for the support of the judgment debtor when the judgment debtor retires.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“ERISA defines “participant” as a present or former employee of an employer. 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (6) (1988). The Secretary of the Labor (“Secretary”), pursuant to authority granted in 29 U.S.C. § 1135 (1988), 5 has limited the definition of employee as follows: (b) Plans without Employees. For purposes of title I of the Act and this chapter, the term “employee benefit plan” shall include any plan, fund or program, other than an apprenticeship or other training program, under which no employees are participants covered under the plan as defined in paragraph (d) of this section ... (c) Employees. For purposes of this section: (1) An individual and his or her spouse shall not be deemed to be employees with respect to a trade or business, whether incorporated, or unincorporated, which is wholly owned by the individual or by the individual and his or her spouse ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Watson
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.