In Re Hazelhurst’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
March 2007
most recently cited
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 522
Relies on Alexander v. Conley · Lawrence v. Jahn (In Re Lawrence) · In Re Sumerell · Fernandez v. Seidler · Prater v. Riechman
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While not an element for consideration under the statute, value may nonetheless be important in determining whether an article may be categorized as a luxury item. As such, it might well not be “necessary and proper.” The court does not suggest that these are all the criteria that might be looked at in evaluating the jewelry/wearing apparel issue. As stated, each case stands on its own.”
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.