Dirk Epperson Betty Schneider v. Entertainment Express Inc Irvin Richter Hill International Inc Hill Arts & Entertainment Systems Inc’s Empirical Analysis
242 F.3d 100 · 2001
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Curry v. City of Syracuse (2003), Scherer v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States (2003)
13 federal appellate · 5 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
Relies on Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America · Swift & Co. Packers v. Compania Colombiana Del Caribe, S. A. · Peacock v. Thomas · Riggs v. Johnson County · United States v. Robert F. Simone
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Since Peacock , most courts have continued to draw a distinction between post-judgment proceedings to collect an existing judgment and proceedings, such as claims of alter ego liability and veil-piercing, that raise an independent controversy with a new party in an effort to shift liability.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We have reserved the use of ancillary jurisdiction in subsequent proceedings for the exercise of a federal court’s inherent power to enforce its judgments. Without jurisdiction to enforce a judgment entered by a federal court, “the judicial power would be incomplete and entirely inadequate to the purposes for which it was conferred by the Constitution.” In defining that power, we have approved the exercise of ancillary jurisdiction over a broad range of supplementary proceedings involving third parties to assist in the protection and enforcement of federal judgments — including attachment, mandamus, garnishment, and the prejudgment avoidance of fraudulent conveyances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Aaron v. Mattikow“[W]e have held the district court has enforcement jurisdiction in this case because no court should be powerless to enforce its own judgment when a defendant fraudulently conveys assets to avoid the judgment. The fact that the defendant conveys them to a non-diverse party should not divest a district court of enforcement jurisdiction. Such a result would encourage judgment debtors to engage in such conduct, not only to avoid payment of the judgment but also to force the winning plaintiff to pursue him to another jurisdiction.”
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.