Browning v. Levy’s Empirical Analysis
283 F.3d 761 · 2002
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 12 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 234 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2024 · most notably Winget v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2008), Eastman v. Union Pacific Railroad (2007)
30 federal appellate · 12 district · 8 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.
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 1107 · 11 U.S.C. § 1123 · 11 U.S.C. § 1128 · 11 U.S.C. § 521 · 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 151 (Bankruptcy Amendments) · 28 U.S.C. § 157 · 29 U.S.C. § 1106 (§ 406 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. · Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. Federal Communications Commission · Pinney Dock & Transport Co. v. Penn Central Corp.
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 234 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) a final decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) a subsequent action between the same parties or their “privies”; (3) an issue in the subsequent action which was litigated or which should have been litigated in the prior action; and (4) an identity of the causes of action.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The debtor's] blanket reservation was of little value to the bankruptcy court and the other parties to the bankruptcy proceeding because it did not enable the value of [the debtor's] claims to be taken into account in the disposition of the debtor's estate. Significantly, it neither names [the defendants] nor states the factual basis for the reserved claims. We therefore conclude that [the debtor's] blanket reservation does not defeat the application of res judicata to its claims against [the defendants].”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In accordance with section 1123(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Company shall retain and may enforce any claims, rights, and causes of action that the Debtor or its bankruptcy estate may hold against any person or entity, including, without limitation, claims and causes of action arising under section 542, 543, 544, 547, 548, 550, or 553 of the Bankruptcy Code.”
5 later decisions 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.