In Re: Norman Shearin Jr’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 8 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Maggio v. Zeitz · Usa Diversified Products Inc Boyer v. Carlton Fields Ward Emmanuel Smith & Cutler Pa · Smith v. Moore · Hager v. Gibson · Redfield v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. (In Re Robertson)
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[p]resent possession, either actual or constructive, of the property or its identifiable proceeds, by the person from whom its turnover is sought, is required for recovery under this section.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Gary Wayne Pyatt, Debtor. Tracy Brown v. Gary Wayne Pyatt, Robert J. Blackwell, Chapter 7 Trustee Rice Pete Burns, Chapter 7 Trustee James Cole, Chapter 7 Trustee Fredrich J. Cruse, Chapter 7 Trustee Rebert E. Eggmann, Chapter 7 Trustee Janice A. Harder, Chapter 7 Trustee Charles W. Riske, Chapter 7 Trustee Leslie A. Davis, Chapter 7 Trustee National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees, Amici on Behalf of National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, Amicus on Behalf Of · In re Pyatt“possession, custody, or control, during the case,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Gary Wayne Pyatt, Debtor. Tracy Brown v. Gary Wayne Pyatt, Robert J. Blackwell, Chapter 7 Trustee Rice Pete Burns, Chapter 7 Trustee James Cole, Chapter 7 Trustee Fredrich J. Cruse, Chapter 7 Trustee Rebert E. Eggmann, Chapter 7 Trustee Janice A. Harder, Chapter 7 Trustee Charles W. Riske, Chapter 7 Trustee Leslie A. Davis, Chapter 7 Trustee National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees, Amici on Behalf of National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, Amicus on Behalf Of · In re Pyatt“The firm’s third contention concerns its lack of possession and inability to turn over the profits already distributed which is answered by In re USA Diversified Prods., Co., with which we agree. The court in that case decided that section 542(a) “requires the delivery of the property or the value of the property” and that to read it otherwise would enable possessors of property of the estate to escape trustees’ demands “simply by transferring the property to someone else.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Fleming
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.