301 F. Supp. 379 - In Re Southern Land Title Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently June 2010
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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. § 103 · 11 U.S.C. § 501 · 11 U.S.C. § 502 · 11 U.S.C. § 506 · 11 U.S.C. § 526 (§ 227 of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 11 U.S.C. § 541 · 11 U.S.C. § 544 · 11 U.S.C. § 546
Relies on Case v. Los Angeles Lumber Products Co. · Securities & Exchange Commission v. United States Realty & Improvement Co. · Consolidated Rock Products Co. v. Du Bois · United Mine Workers of America v. Benedict Coal Corporation · Meyer v. Fleming
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Without limiting the generality of the meaning of the term “good faith”, a petition shall be deemed not to be filed in good faith if— (1) the petitioning creditors have acquired their claims for the purpose of filing the petition; or (2) adequate relief would be obtainable by a debtor’s petition under the provisions of chapter 11 of this title; or (3) it is unreasonable to expect that a plan of reorganization can be effected; or (4) a prior proceeding is pending in any court and it appears that the interests of creditors and stockholders would be best subserved in such prior proceeding.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Lela & Co. · In re Lela & Co.“Basically, the general elements of good faith, undefined in the statute, mean that the petition must be filed with the honest intent and genuine desire to utilize the provisions of Chapter X for its intended purpose — to effectuate a corporate reorganization — and not merely as a device to serve some sinister and unworthy purpose of the petitioner.... The court cannot and will not tolerate such misuse of the reorganization process.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In determining whether the requisite value or equity exists, the emphasis must be on the future and the ability of the corporation to carry on in the future. The present financial straits of the debtor is irrelevant to the extent that it may be modified by reorganization for the very purpose of Chapter X is to modify and adjust the present stranglehold on the debtor in order that it may continue to operate. The present is relevant, however, as is the past, as an indication of what caused the debtor’s floundering condition and what may be expected for the future. Unless the court is satisfied that the prospects for the future are so bleak that no chance for reorganization exists, it should not preclude those who petition from the opportunity to attempt reorganization. The petition is not to be dismissed for lack of good faith merely because the petitioners have no equity, as established by the above authorities; the petition is not to be dismissed for lack of good faith merely because the debtor is unable to meet its present obligations as they mature for this is exactly the cause of the need for corporate reorganization; the petition is not to be dismissed for lack of good faith merely because no plan of reorganization can be devised in which all of the creditors and stockholders may participate, as established by the above authorities. In urging their extreme arguments, the opposing creditors have simply chosen to overlook the very nature of corporate reorganization. At thi”
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.