Renaissance Cosmetics, Inc. v. Development Specialists Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 1412 · 28 U.S.C. § 1452 · 28 U.S.C. § 157
Relies on Cooney v. Osgood Machinery, Inc. · Maiello v. NYS BD. OF PAROLE · Southmark Corporation Southmark Corporation v. Coopers & Lybrand · Iragorri v. United Technologies Corp. · Matter of Allstate Ins. Co.(stolarz-Njm)
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in state court; and (6) the action is capable of being”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the effect on the efficient administration of the bankruptcy estate; (2) the extent to which issues of state law predominate; (3) the difficulty or unsettled nature of the applicable state law; (4) comity; (5) the degree of relatedness or remoteness of the proceeding to the main bankruptcy case; (6) the existence of the right to a jury trial; and (7) prejudice to the involuntary removed defendants.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[N]othing in this section prevents a district court in the interest of justice, or in the interest of comity with State courts or respect for State law, from abstaining from hearing a particular proceeding arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Semcrude, Lp
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.