Vecchio United States v. G Vecchio a’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably United States v. Towers (1994), United States v. Chavis (1995)
5 federal appellate · 4 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
Relies on United States v. Cardinal Mine Supply, Inc. · In Re Hausladen · Internal Revenue Service v. Century Boat Co. · In Re Rago · In Re Electrical Management, Inc.
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(3) third, in payment of any allowed unsecured claim proof of which is tardily filed under section 501(a) of this title other than a claim of the kind specified in paragraph (2)(C) of this subsection; .... 11 U.S.C. § 726 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Friesenhahn · In Re Tucker“(a) NECESSITY FOR FILING. An unsecured creditor or an equity security holder must file a proof of claim or interest in accordance with this rule for the claim or interest to be allowed.... (c) TIME FOR FILING. In a chapter 7 liquidation ... a proof of claim shall be filed within 90 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors called pursuant to § 341(a) of the Code....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he trustee’s argument is at odds with the plain language of § 726(a). Section 726(a)(1) accords priority status to claims specified in § 507 without regard to the timeliness of their filing. In sharp contrast, subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) of § 726 categorize nonpriority unsecured claims into those that are timely filed, those that are tardily filed where the creditor did not have proper notice of the bankruptcy, and those that are tardily filed where the creditor received proper notice of the bankruptcy. Thus, Congress plainly knew how to distinguish between timely and tardily filed claims, yet did not make that distinction for claims filed under § 507. The absence of a timeliness distinction in § 726(a)(1) strongly suggests that this subsection encompasses all priority claims whenever filed.”
2 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.