Graber v. Fuqua’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently June 2025
17 state decisions
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District)
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 105 · 11 U.S.C. § 1112 · 11 U.S.C. § 301 · 11 U.S.C. § 303 · 11 U.S.C. § 350 · 11 U.S.C. § 362 · 11 U.S.C. § 541 · 11 U.S.C. § 707
Relies on Grogan v. Garner · Butner v. United States · Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux · Duncan v. Walker · San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“{11b} “(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the district courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all cases under title 11. {¶ c} “(b) Except as provided in subsection (e)(2), and notwithstanding any Act of Congress that confers exclusive jurisdiction on a court or courts other than the district courts, the district courts shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of all civil proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11. {¶ d} “(c)(1) Except with respect to a case under chapter 15 of title 11, nothing 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. {¶ e} “(2) Upon timely motion of a party in a proceeding based upon a State law claim or State law cause of action, related to a case under title 11 but not arising under title 11 or arising in a case under title 11, with respect to which an action could not have been commenced in a court of the United States absent jurisdiction under this section, the district court shall abstain from hearing such proceeding if an action is commenced, and can be timely adjudicated, in a State forum of appropriate jurisdiction. {¶ f} “(d) Any decision to abstain or not to abstain made under subsection (c) (other than a decision not to abstain in”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[T]he only broad provisions that apply to adversary proceedings — Rule 9011 and section 105(a) — evidence not an intent to preempt, but rather an intent to preserve the existing framework of federal procedure that does not preempt state malicious prosecution claims. In light of the well-established general rule that federal law does not preempt malicious prosecution claims predicated on conduct in federal court, we are unable to find the requisite evidence of an intent to preempt these same claims in bankruptcy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Unlike “cases under [the Bankruptcy Code],” over which federal courts possess exclusive jurisdiction, state and fed eral courts share concurrent jurisdiction over “all civil proceedings arising under [the Bankruptcy Code], or arising in or related to cases under [the Bankruptcy Code].” 28 U.S.C. § 1334 (a)-(b). Indeed, a malicious prosecution claim predicated on conduct in an adversary proceeding does not fall within the federal courts’ exclusive section 1334(a) jurisdiction.”
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.