In Re Kurtzman’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 2017
1 federal appellate · 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. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 11 U.S.C. § 327 · 11 U.S.C. § 328 · 28 U.S.C. § 158
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Mathews v. Eldridge · Dwyer v. Regan · American Civil Liberties Union v. Black Horse Pike Regional Board of Education · In re Marvel Entertainment Group, 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Indeed, section 327(a) vests the authority for “approval” within the sound discretion of the Court. That authority would be eviscerated were the Court required to approve counsel who met the technical test for disinterest but was ill-suited for other reasons such as, for example, inexperience.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Vebeliunas“[U]nder 11 U.S.C. § 328(a) a court may disapprove a trustee's choice of counsel if the proposed rate of compensation is not reasonable.”
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.