Rome v. Braunstein’s Empirical Analysis
19 F.3d 54 · 1994
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 24 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 133 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Southmark Corporation Southmark Corporation v. Coopers & Lybrand (1999), Arochem Corporation Na v. M Coan
12 federal appellate · 24 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. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 11 U.S.C. § 1107 · 11 U.S.C. § 327 · 11 U.S.C. § 328 · 11 U.S.C. § 330
Relies on Woods v. City Nat Bank & Trust Co of Chicago · Wolf v. Weinstein · Martin Martin · In Re Roberts
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 133 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
42 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.