Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 3 F.3d 49 - Official Committee of Subordinated Bondholders v. Integrated Resources, Inc.

Official Committee of Subordinated Bondholders v. Integrated Resources, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

3 F.3d 49 · 1993

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
September 2023
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably Eisenstadt v. Centel Corp. (1997), In Re: Peter Iannochino

15 federal appellate · 2 district ·

2601993200020102020decided

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. § 105 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 158

Relies on Connecticut National Bank v. Germain · Curtiss-Wright Corporation v. General Electric Company · Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. MacKey · Shimer v. Fugazy · Caradelis v. Refineria Panama, S. A.

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

  1. “[A] “dispute,” for appealability purposes in the bankruptcy context, means at least an entire claim on which relief may be granted .... In sum, for a bankruptcy court order to be final within the meaning of § 158(d), the order need not resolve all of the issues raised by the bankruptcy; but it must completely resolve all of the issues pertaining to a discrete claim, including issues as to the proper relief.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[b]y 'disputes' we do not mean merely competing contentions with respect to separable issues; rather, we apply the same standards of finality that we apply to an appeal under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291.”
    2 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.