17 Mass. App. Ct. 621 - Amonte v. Amonte’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently November 2016
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 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. § 301 · 11 U.S.C. § 362 · 11 U.S.C. § 541 · 11 U.S.C. § 701
Relies on Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · In re Smith Corset Shops, Inc. · National Labor Relations Board v. Evans Plumbing Co. · Coe v. Coe · Gould v. Gould
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Plaintiff also asserts that the federal automatic stay provisions need not be applied in the present case because, under 11 U.S.C. section 523 (a), a debt or judgment for liability incurred as a result of the debtor's operation of a motor vehicle while legally intoxicated is not dischargeable under the federal bankruptcy law. Plaintiff has provided us with no authority for concluding that debts which may ultimately be nondischargeable under federal law are not subject to the automatic stay provisions of the federal bankruptcy code. Nondischargeable debts affect the ability of the bankruptcy court to coordinate payment among all creditors in an equitable manner and thus fall within the ambit of the federal legislation until the appropriate federal court has lifted the stay.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Overbey v. Murray“the marital support exception does not speak in terms of the 'commencement or continuation' of proceedings, [and thus] we can only conclude that the word 'collection' in Sec. 362(b)(2) was expressly intended to apply to proceedings which have culminated in the entry of a final judgment or order for alimony, maintenance, or support prior to the filing of a petition under the Act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stringer v. Huet“[I]n holding that the institution of a Chapter 13 proceeding does not automatically stay enforcement of nondischargeable alimony and child support obligations, our ruling is limited to those instances where the decree of the state court fixing alimony or child support precedes the order of the bankruptcy court confirming a plan in Chapter 13 proceedings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stringer v. Huet
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.