In Re Baerwald’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 11 U.S.C. § 522
Relies on Commonwealth National Bank v. United States · 103 S. Ct. 563 - Commonwealth National Bank v. Ashe · Great American Credit Corp. v. Tursi (In Re Tursi) · First National Bank of Pennsylvania v. Acklin (In Re Acklin) · Lowell v. First National Bank of Cape Cod (In Re Lowell)
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We believe, however, that there is a fundamental defect in the reasoning in Acklin. The defect is that there is no reason why state law should govern this issue when the issue is directly addressed by the Bankruptcy Code. As we noted supra, under the Bankruptcy Code, mortgages and judicial liens are clearly mutually exclusive entities. There is simply no justification, via state law or otherwise, for infringing upon this mutual exclusivity when the Code speaks so clearly on this point. In this regard, see Brown v. Beneficial Consumer Discount Company, 25 B.R. 319 (D.C.M.D. Pa.1982), wherein the District Court reversed a Bankruptcy Court decision which had specifically concurred with Acklin on the identical issue. The District Court in Brown unequivocally rejected the holding and reasoning in Ack-lin.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Mancuso
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.