Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 248 F.3d 110 - John Cinicola

John Cinicola’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
May 2025
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably In the Matter Of: Mirant Corporation v. Mirant Corporation, Brisbin v. Superior Valve Co. (2005)

12 federal appellate · 2 district ·

230200120102020decided

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. § 365

Relies on United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty · National Labor Relations Board v. Bildisco & Bildisco · North Carolina v. Rice · Marco Defunis et al. v. Charles Odegaard, President of the University of Washington. · Church of Scientology of California v. United States

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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The reversal or modification on appeal of an authorization under subsection (b) or (c) of this section of a sale or lease of property does not affect the validity of a sale or lease under such authorization to an entity that purchased or leased such property in good faith, whether or not such entity knew of the pendency of the appeal, unless such authorization and such sale or lease were stayed pending appeal.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “reversing or modifying the authorization to sell would affect the validity of the sale or lease.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(f)(1) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, notwithstanding a provision in an executory contract or unexpired lease of the debt- or, or in applicable law, that prohibits, restricts, or conditions the assignment of such contract or lease, the trustee may assign such contract or lease under paragraph (2) of this subsection. (2) The trustee may assign an execu-tory contract or unexpired lease of the debtor only if— (A) the trustee assumes such contract or lease in accordance with the provisions of this section; and (B) adequate assurance of future performance by the assignee of such contract or lease is provided, whether or not there has been a default in such contract or lease.”
    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.