Omni Manufacturing, Inc. v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
21 F.3d 660 · 1994
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Rogers (1995), In the Matter of Alan J. Faden Harriet B. Faden, Debtors. Alan J. Faden Harriet B. Faden v. Insurance Company of North America (1996)
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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. § 105 · 11 U.S.C. § 523
Relies on Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership · Penson v. Ohio · Mabey v. Official Committee of Equity Security Holders · Birkett v. Columbia Bank · Official Committee of Equity Security Holders v. Mabey
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.
“that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Several bankruptcy courts, concerned with the disruption that may result from reopening no-asset cases to permit the late scheduling of creditors, have offered a different and very persuasive reading of section 523(a)(3). These courts suggest that under section 727(b), a debtor is statutorily entitled to a discharge from all of his pre-petition debts, listed or unlisted, unless a specific exception to discharge applies. Section 523(a)(3), these courts note, only applies where a proof of claim would have been required. In no-asset cases, because the creditors are instructed not to file proofs of claim, section 523(a)(3) does not apply.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the creditor in order to properly schedule it. Then, two and one half years later, debtors scheduled the creditor, but listed the wrong address. 22 The bankruptcy court found that the debtors could have learned [the creditor's] correct address by picking up the telephone and concluded that it could not condone such 'a lack of diligence on the part of the debtor.' Coupled with the fact that the debtors apparently failed properly to schedule a number of other creditors for several years, their error with regard to [this creditor] can hardly be termed mere negligence or inadvertence.”
1 later decision 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.