Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 192 F.3d 733 - In Re Michael J. KRUEGER, Debtor-Appellant

In Re Michael J. KRUEGER, Debtor-Appellant’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
February 2022
most recently cited

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably In Re Dennis E. CARLSON, Debtor-Appellant (2001), Brown v. Pitzer (In Re Brown) (2000)

1201999200020102020decided

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. § 1325

Relies on Harris v. McRae · Associates Commercial Corp. v. Rash · Stutzman v. Board of Education · 126 Ill. 2d 150 - Vaughn v. Speaker · Scott v. E W R

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

  1. “(1) voluntary words or conduct by the estopped party amounting to a misrepresentation or concealment of material facts; (2) actual or implied knowledge of the estopped party that the representations were not true; (3) lack of knowledge of the true facts by the innocent party both at time made or at time acted upon; (4) intent, or a reasonable expectation, on the part of the estopped party that the innocent party would act on the misrepresentations; (5) a reasonable, good-faith, detrimental change of position by the innocent party based on the misrepresentations; and (6) prejudice to the innocent party.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[w]here a party accepts late payments it may waive or suspend its right to timely payments and its right to declare a forfeiture unless the buyer is given a definite and written notice of the intention to require strict compliance with the contract in the future.. .To reestablish strict compliance, the notice must give a reasonable time for performance, and what is a reasonable time depends on the facts in the case.”
    1 later decision 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.