in Re Robert John Arrol’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “(1) The judgment debtor and the judgment debtor’s spouse if the spouses reside together in the homestead. (2) The judgment debtor and at least one of the following persons who the judgment debtor cares for or maintains in the homestead: (A) The minor child or minor grandchild of the judgment debtor or the judgment debtor’s spouse or the minor child or grandchild of a deceased spouse or former spouse.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Arrendondo-Smith · In re Pugh

2. “2(A) any property that is exempt under. . .State or local law that is applicable on the date of the filing of the petition at the place in which the debtor’s domicile has been located for the 180 days immediately preceding the date of the filing of the petition, or for a longer portion of such 180 day period than in any other place....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Ginther · In Re Stratton

3. “In Strangman v. Duke, 140 Cal.App.2d 185 , 295 P.2d 12 (1956), the California court of appeals articulated the legislative goal of “providing a place for the family and its surviving members, where they may reside and enjoy the comforts of a home, freed from any anxiety that it may be taken from them against their will.... ” Id. at 190 , 295 P.2d 12 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This goal exists independently from state boundary lines. Although the facts of this case may be somewhat unique, the logic of applying the California homestead exemption to Arrol’s Michigan dwelling is illustrated by the way in which California’s automobile exemption is applied. As the bankruptcy court noted in its application of California Civil Procedure Code § 704.010 (West Supp.1997), a bankruptcy debtor in California may claim as exempt $1,900 of equity in an automobile that is physically outside of California on the date the bankruptcy petition is filed. Although an automobile, unlike a home, is movable, the automobile exemption nonetheless reflects a concern for preserving a need for basic transportation. Similarly, the homestead exemption reflects a concern for preserving a need for basic housing. Both exemptions address concerns that transcend state boundaries.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Fernandez