In Re Rustia’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(c) The trustee may not avoid under this section a transfer— (4) to or for the benefit of a creditor, to the extent that, after such transfer, such creditor gave new value to or for the benefit of the debtor— (A) not secured by an otherwise unavoidable security interest; and (B) on account of which new value the debtor did not make an otherwise unavoidable transfer to or for the benefit of such creditor.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Riezman v. Phillips Petroleum Co. (In Re Telecommunication Services, Inc.) · Leathers v. Prime Leather Finishes Co.

2. ““... The ‘formula in paragraph (4)’ is not consistent with defendant’s view, which applies the net result rule to the entire 90 day preference period as a whole. Under paragraph (4) new value must be given by the creditor ‘after such transfer.’ Thus, only preferential transfers made by the debtor before the new value was given may be netted out against the subsequent new value.- However, preferential payments following receipt of new value are not netted against the new value. Thus, the net result rule does not apply to the 90 day preference period as a whole; each transfer must be examined independently to determine whether or not the creditor later replenished the estate.” (Emphasis added by court).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Amex Trading Co. v. Brown Feed & Chemical Co. (In Re Amex Trading Co.) · Kellman v. P.S.E. & G. (In Re Jolly "N", Inc.)

3. “Code § 547(c)(4) has its most frequent application in revolving credit relationships. In this context, it is often confused with the so-called “net result rule,” an analytical approach that considers all payments and extensions of credit received during the period applicable to preference law and permits recovery of only the net gain received by the creditor. This rule was applied in cases at the beginning of the 20th century, but is of doubtful current validity. In contrast to the “net result” test, the subsequent advance rule protects preferential transfers only to the extent that subsequent advances are made.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Riezman v. Phillips Petroleum Co. (In Re Telecommunication Services, Inc.) · Flatau v. Marathon Oil Co. (In Re Craig Oil Co.)