In Re Anolik’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably Specker Motor Sales Co. v. Eisen (2004), United States v. Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn (In Re Unitcast, Inc.) (1998)
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
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. § 326 · 11 U.S.C. § 330 · 11 U.S.C. § 331 · 11 U.S.C. § 503 · 11 U.S.C. § 507 · 11 U.S.C. § 726
Relies on Grendel's Den, Inc. v. Larkin · In The Matter Of Evangeline Refining Company · In Re Kendavis Industries International, Inc. · Boston & Maine Corp. v. Moore · Indian Motocycle Associates III Ltd. Partnership v. Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions presented by the case; (3) the skill required to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee for similar work in the community; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time pressures imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and results obtained as a result of the attorney’s services; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney; (10) the “undesirability” of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases. Smuggler’s Beach Properties, Inc., 149 B.R. at 743 ; In re First Software Corporation at 112.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re LaFrance“whether the party facing disgorgement had a reasonable expectation that the payment received was final, ... whether any party who would suffer from nondisgorgement has objected to the trustee’s proposed final distribution!,] ... [and whether] a professional ha[d] reason to believe that its goal [was] unachievable but nevertheless continue[d] to unreasonably amass fees.... Where disgorgement by any party is ordered, such disgorgement should not exceed the amount that would be required to achieve a pro rata distribution assuming that all parties subject to disgorgement were ordered to relinquish funds, regardless of whether the court actually so ordered.”
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.