Gaston Snow Alfred Bianco v. Robert a Erkins & Bernadine Erkins’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably 137 F. Supp. 2d 452 - Cromer Finance Ltd. v. Berger (2001), Adamar of New Jersey, Inc. v. August (In Re August) (2011)
4 district ·
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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · United States 77-1359 v. Kimbell Foods Inc · Vanston Bondholders Protective Committee v. Green · O'Melveny & Myers v. Federal Deposit Insurance
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n the absence of a compelling federal interest which dictates otherwise, the Klaxon rule should prevail where a federal bankruptcy court seeks to determine the extent of a debtor's property interest.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Klaxon rejected the need for uniformity as a justification for displacing state conflicts rules”). Further, the claims process is one of the areas in which bankruptcy jurisdiction is most likely to intersect with state law, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed how the”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Defendants also argue that because they have not developed sufficient contacts with either New York or Massachusetts for the courts of either state to be capable of asserting in personam jurisdiction over them, no cause of action can “accrue” against them in either state for purposes of CPLR 202. This argument was at one point accepted by this Court as reflecting New York Law. See Stafford v. Int’l Harvester Co., 668 F.2d 142, 151 (2d Cir.1981). However, it has now been firmly rejected by the Court of Appeals. See Ins. Co. of North America v. ABB Power Generation, 91 N.Y.2d 180, 186 , 668 N.Y.S.2d 143 , 690 N.E.2d 1249 (1997).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.