In Re Erewhon, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently November 2013 · most notably In Re Jensen-Farley Pictures, Inc. (1985), In Re S.T.N. Enterprises, Inc. (1987)
2 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
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 326 · 11 U.S.C. § 328 · 11 U.S.C. § 330
Relies on General Electric Co. v. International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers · In the Matter of First Colonial Corp. Of America, Bankrupt. American Benefit Life Insurance Company, Appellants-Cross-Appellees v. Franz J. Baddock, Trustee, Appellee-Cross-Appellant. In the Matter of First Colonial Corp. Of America, Bankrupt. Bert K. Robinson v. American Benefit Life Insurance Company · King v. Greenblatt · Furtado v. Bishop · Lund v. Affleck
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Should the estate, and every bankrupt estate is assumed to be financially troubled by definition, be placed under the duress of added costs for trying, in good faith, to ensure that the charges against it are reasonable? The [creditor’s] attorney is protected against unreasonable challenges because counsel for the estate will always have to justify the reasonableness of his challenge when his own fees on the matter are considered. ... Even under the special statutes which authorize attorneys’ fees, such as the Civil Rights Statutes, attorneys’ fees are only awarded to the prevailing party....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Among the unique functions of the Bankruptcy Court is the obligation to authorize post-filing services that are to be attributed to the estate. Regardless of any agreements made prior to the rendering of those services, including agreements for compensation actually approved by the Court [sic] (citing Carter v. Woods, supra) The Court must ultimately determine the fair and reasonable com pensation for the necessary authorized services rendered by all professionals... (emphasis added). 21 B.R. at 80 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The Court is charged with the responsibility to make an independent determination of the reasonable necessity of the services and the appropriate charges for said services as they apply not in general terms but to the specific matters before the Court.””
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.