In Re Antell’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 2017
1 federal appellate · 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. § 361 · 11 U.S.C. § 362 · 28 U.S.C. § 1334
Relies on Pennoyer v. Neff · Norwest Bank Worthington v. Ahlers · Johnson v. Righetti · Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc. · Southland Corp. v. United States
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he Pennsylvania rules of procedure require that notice of an impending foreclosure sale be served upon all lienholders so that they may protect their interests at the foreclosure sale (by bidding, for example). Pa.R.Civ.P. 3129.1. See, e.g., Beneficial Mut. Sav. Bank v. Murray, 30 D. & C.3d 115 (Del. Co. 1984).... Conversely, though, such lienholders need not, under state law, be served with the foreclosure complaint, or be made a party to the complaint. Pa.R.Civ.P. 1144.”
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.