In Re Rayl’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 408 (§ 2002 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 157 · 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (§ 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on MacKey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service, Inc. · 28 F. App'x 409 - Lampkins v. Golden · In Re Buzza · In Re Schreiner
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Section 2329.66(A)(10)(c) of the Ohio Revised Code specifically refers to individual retirement accounts, individual retirement annuities, Roth IRA's and education IRA's. Unlike the Michigan statute at issue in [ Lampkins v. Golden, 28 Fed.Appx. 409 (6th Cir.2002)], it does not reference the whole of § 408 of the Internal Revenue Code. Furthermore, the Ohio statute exempts [rollover IRA's] only to the extent that the contributions are less than or equal to ... the applicable limits imposed by federal statutes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.