Pro-Snax Distributors Inc Andrews Kurth Llp v. Family Snacks Inc’s Empirical Analysis
157 F.3d 414 · 1998
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 122 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2017 · most notably Lamie v. United States Trustee (2004), Total Minatome Corp. v. Jack/Wade Drilling, Inc. (2001)
33 federal appellate · 6 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
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 330
Relies on United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. · Connecticut National Bank v. Germain · Farrar v. Hobby · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council
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 122 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(4)(A) Except as provided in subpara-graph (B), the court shall not allow compensation for— (i) unnecessary duplication of services; or (ii) services that were not- (I) reasonably likely to benefit the debtor’s estate; or (II) necessary to the administration of the case.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... bound by our conventions of statutory construction, even though common sense might lead the lay observer to conclude that a different result is perhaps more appropriate. The law, and the rule to which we adhere in order to interpret it, does not always conform to the dictates of common sense. In this case, we are faced with a statute which is clear on its face. It excludes attorneys from its catalog of professional officers of a bankruptcy estate who may be compensated for their work after the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee. Although the legislative history and, indeed, a brief syntactical evaluation of the clause at issue suggest that Congress inadvertently neglected to include attorneys, our canons of construction do not require — nay, do not permit — us to consider these exogenous sources when the statute is clear textually on its face- [I]n the absence of any ambiguity, our examination is confined to the words of the statute, which are assumed to carry their ordinary meaning. Recourse to the legislative history is unnecessary in light of the plain meaning of this text.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the trustee, with the court's approval, may employ one or more attorneys, accountants, appraisers, auctioneers, or other professional persons, that do not hold or represent an interest adverse to the estate, and that are disinterested persons, to represent or assist the trustee in carrying out the trustee’s duties under this title.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.