In Re Bailey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district ·

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

1. “The Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure will set the time limits, the form, and the procedure for filing, which will determine whether claims are timely or tardily filed.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Babbin · United States v. Clark

2. “The Hausladen court finds that the current practice of disallowing late filed claims resulted from improperly carrying over pre-code law into present practice. Hausladen, supra, 146 B.R. at 559 . That court observes that under the Bankruptcy Act (former law) late claims were explicitly disallowed: “[sjeetion § 57(n) of the Act provided that ... ‘[ejlaims which are not filed within six months after the first date set for the first meeting of creditors shall not be allowed ...’” Hausladen, supra, 146 B.R. at 559 (emphasis in original) (citing 11 U.S.C. § 93 (n)) (repealed Oct. 1, 1979). Former Bankruptcy Rule 13-302(e)(2) implemented this time bar by adopting the time limits on the filing of claims established by § 57(n) of the Act. Hausladen, supra, 146 B.R. at 561 (citing the Advisory Committee Note to Rule 13-302(e)(2)). The legislative history of the Bankruptcy Reform Act (basis for present law) reveals, however, that in revising and modernizing the bankruptcy law “nearly all procedural matters [formerly incorporated in the provisions of the Act] have been removed and left to the Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure_” H.R.Rep. No. 595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 449 (1977), reprinted in, 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 5963, 6405. Thus, the fact that former § 57(n) of the Bankruptcy Act explicitly disallowed late claims while Code 502(b) does not, fails to establish an abandonment of the Congressional “bar date” concept in light of the language of Fed. R.Bankr.P. 3002(a). (emphasis ad”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Parr

3. “With all due respect to that observation the plain reading of FED.R.BANKR.P. 3002(a) requires this Court to reach the conclusion that that Rule emphatically requires the filing of a proof of claim within the period prescribed under FED. R.BANKR.P. 3002(c) as a condition precedent to allowance.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Zimmerman