Texas Securities Inc Bruce v. James Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 328
Relies on Pro-Snax Distributors Inc Andrews Kurth Llp v. Family Snacks Inc · Unsecureds' Committee v. Puget Sound Plywood Inc · National Gypsum Company Donaldson Lufkin Jenrette Securities Corporation v. National Gypsum Company · Pitrat v. Reimers · United States v. Ruff
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) The trustee, or a committee appointed under section 1102 of this title, with the court's approval, may employ or authorize the employment of a professional person under section 327 or 1103 of this title, as the case may be, on any reasonable terms and conditions of employment, including on a retainer, on an hourly basis, on a fixed or percentage fee basis, or on a contingent fee basis. Notwithstanding such terms and conditions, the court may allow compensation different from the compensation provided under such terms and conditions after the conclusion of such employment, if such terms and conditions prove to have been improvident in light of developments not capable of being anticipated at the time of the fixing of such terms and conditions.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[s]ection 328 applies when the bankruptcy court approves a particular rate or means of payment, and § 330 applies when the court does not do so.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Once the bankruptcy court has approved a rate or means of payment, such as a contingent fee, the court cannot on the submission of the final fee application instead approve a `reasonable' fee under § 330(a), unless the bankruptcy court finds that the original arrangement was improvident due to unanticipated circumstances as required by § 328(a).”
3 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.