Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 193 BR 5 - In Re Stober

In Re Stober’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
November 2014
most recently cited

2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently November 2014

2 district · 1 state decisions

60199620002010decided

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. § 109 · 11 U.S.C. § 1326 · 11 U.S.C. § 349 · 11 U.S.C. § 362 · 11 U.S.C. § 521

Relies on Goeb v. Heid · Jacobsen v. Filler · Meadowbrook Investors' Group v. Thirtieth Place, Inc. (In Re Thirtieth Place, Inc.) · Patton v. FIRST FED. SAV. & LOAN ASS'N, ETC. · Patton v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Phoenix

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

  1. “The person conducting the sale may, for any cause deemed in the interest of the beneficiary or trustor, or both, postpone or continue the sale from time to time, or change the place of the sale to any other location authorized pursuant to this chapter by giving notice of the new date, time and place by public declaration at the time and place last appointed for the sale. Any new sale date shall be a fixed date within ninety calendar days of the date of the declaration. No other notice of the postponed, continued or relocated sale is required except as provided in subsection C of this section.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In essence, Acosta judicially amends the Arizona statute to provide additional noticing requirements applicable only to- debtors who had previously filed a federal bankruptcy case. The Acosta opinion thus extends additional post-dismissal bankruptcy protections to former debtors, although the intent of 11 U.S.C. § 349 provides that the effect of a dismissal requires only a return to the status quo.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.