Welt v. Sirmans’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 547 · 11 U.S.C. § 548 · 11 U.S.C. § 704 · 11 U.S.C. § 726 · 28 U.S.C. § 157 · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · O'Melveny & Myers v. Federal Deposit Insurance · Schenberg v. Bond · Cenco Incorporated v. Seidman & Seidman
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Applying the two-pronged tort liability analysis espoused in both Cenco [Inc. v. Seidman & Seidman, 686 F.2d 449 (7th Cir.1982)] and Schact[ v. Brown, 711 F.2d 1343 (1983)], this Court finds that any recovery by the Trustee would serve to properly compensate the victims of the wrongdoing and deter future wrongdoing. With respect to the first factor, any recovery by the Trustee from the instant suit would not benefit [the debtor], but rather the creditors of [the debtor], 11 U.S.C. § 726 . [footnote omitted] Clearly, [the wrongdoer] will not benefit from any judgment that the Trustee achieves against [the attorneys]. Second, as to the deterrence factor, “permitting recovery in this case would not send unqualified signals to shareholders that they need not be alert to managerial fraud since they may later recover full indemnification for that fraud from third party participants.” 33”
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.