Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 277 F.3d 1041 - In Re: Robert Zepecki

In Re: Robert Zepecki’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
February 2019
most recently cited

Relationships

Applies 11 U.S.C. § 329

Relies on Joseph v. United States · Parts & Electric Motors, Inc. v. Sterling Electric, Inc. · In re Litzenberg · Walton v. LaBarge · Snyder v. Dewoskin

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

  1. “We also find no clear error in the bankruptcy court’s finding that Brown’s representation was in connection with or in contemplation of the possibility or imminence of a bankruptcy proceeding. The Illinois land transaction occurred within one month after Zepecki’s divorce from Ms. Kania, who was Zepecki’s largest creditor, and within four months prior to the bankruptcy filing. The proceeds of the land sale constituted Zepecki’s largest asset with which to satisfy Ms. Kama’s judgment. The bankruptcy court found that the land transaction was a sham and was performed in an effort to prevent the asset from becoming property of Zepeeki’s bankruptcy estate and prevent his ex-wife from recovering on her judgment. Zepecki lost his right to a bankruptcy discharge because he failed to identify the transaction or its proceeds on his bankruptcy schedules, which further supports the court’s conclusion that Zepecki was trying to keep the asset from his wife. These facts support the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that Zepecki was contemplating bankruptcy when he transferred the Illinois property and when Brown assisted in the attempted section 1031 transfer of that same property.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “`In an appeal from the BAP, this court sits as a second court of review, reviewing [the bankruptcy court's] findings of fact for clear error and [its] conclusions of law de novo.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “As the second court to review the bankruptcy court's factual findings, our independent review gives deference to the BAP's conclusions.”
    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.