Adams v. Slonim’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Relies on Russello v. United States · Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire · Burlington Northern Railroad v. Oklahoma Tax Commission · Stafford v. Briggs · 48 Cal. 2d 805 - Grainger v. Antoyan
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“interpretation of subsection (a)(1). See In re Hecht, 51 B.R. 72 (Bkrtcy.D.Vt.1985). In Hecht, however, the court actually upheld the limited partner's security interest despite its assertion that subsection (a)(1) bars such interests. Id. at 76. Given this result, we do not find that authority persuasive. Accordingly we reject the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Adams v. Slonim“the partnership. Although the first sentence, by itself, seems to support this interpretation, the language used in subsection (a)(1), when compared to (a)(2), dispels any notion that the section applies only to direct transactions with the partnership. In specific, subsection (a)(2) prohibits a limited partner from”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Adams v. Slonim“while subsection (a)(1) generally prohibits a limited partner from”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Adams v. Slonim
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.