Sewell v. C’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 1 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “perform the same appellate review as did the district court: [the appellate court] examine[s] the bankruptcy court's findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard, and [the appellate court] examine[s] that court's legal determinations under the de novo standard.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In the Matter Of: Hannover Corporation Redwood Raevine Corp. Rubicon Xxi Corp. Place Vendome, Inc. Place Vendome Corporation of America Penzance, Inc. And Atg, Inc., Debtors. Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. William G. Hayes, Jr., William G. Hayes, Jr. v. Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, in the Matter Of: Hannover Corporation Redwood Raevine Corp. Rubicon Xxi Corp. Place Vendome, Inc. Place Vendome Corporation of America Penzance, Inc. And Atg, Inc., Debtors. William G. Hayes, Jr. v. George Russell Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. William G. Hayes, Jr. · Hannover Corporation v. G G

2. “[The bankruptcy judge] assumed that if [the debtor’s] plan was “ERISA-quali-fied” ... then the balance of [the debt- or’s] account is outside the bankruptcy estate given § 541(c)(2) and Patterson. It is not clear to us that this is so. Patterson holds that ERISA counts as “applicable nonbankruptcy law,” not that all the full balances in all ERISA-quali-fied plans are necessarily protected from creditors.... We do not read Patterson to say that money readily available to participants for current consumption necessarily is unavailable to repay debts.... But because the [creditor] does not argue, and the record does not suggest, that [the debtor] lawfully could have withdrawn any of the funds remaining in his account at the time the bankruptcy case began, we do not pursue the question.”

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

3. “Nowhere in ERISA ... is there a requirement that, to be an ERISA plan and thus be governed by ERISA, a plan must be tax qualified. Indeed, the converse is true: An ERISA plan that is not or may not be tax-qualified nevertheless continues to be governed by ERISA for essentially every other purpose. It would be perverse, indeed, if the negligent or intentional act of an ERISA plan sponsor, administrator, or other fiduciary, that results in disqualifi cation for tax purposes could, ipso facto, remove the plan — and thus the beneficial interests of the employee/participants — from the aegis of ERISA and its protection of the very interests for which the legislation was adopted and is administered in parallel by the Treasury and Labor Departments.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Jewell