Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 31 F.3d 1447 - Eisen Moneymaker v. J

Eisen Moneymaker v. J’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

113
cited by 113 later decisions
4
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Resorts International, Inc. v. Lowenschuss (1995), Bruce K. Cable, As in Possession v. Ivy Tech State College (1999)

14 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions

5501994200020102020decided

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. § 323

Relies on Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council · National Labor Relations Board v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n · Tallman v. Northwest Acute Care Corp. · Malone v. United States Postal Service · Severson v. United States

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

  1. “`a definite and firm conviction that the court . . . committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors.'”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[o]nce appointed, the trustee becomes the estate's 'proper party in interest, and the only party with standing to appeal the bankruptcy court's order.'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Guy R. Detrick Donna Detrick Fast Forward, Incorporated, and Northeast Container Corporation v. Panalpina, Incorporated Panalpina Air Freight, Incorporated Multi-Modal Freight Systems, Incorporated Multi-Modal Freight Systems of Virginia Sylvan Friedman, and American Motor Lines, Incorporated Baltimore Freightways, Incorporated Blue Star Freight Lines, Incorporated General Motor Lines, Incorporated Hagerstown Motor Express, Incorporated Jennifer Motor Express, Incorporated Maryland Transport and Storage Company Mills Trucking, Incorporated National Motor Lines, Incorporated New Windsor Express, Incorporated South Carolina Motor Express, Incorporated Tidewater Trucking Company, Incorporated U.S. Motor Express, Incorporated U.S. Transport Group Vista Motor Express, Incorporated John Does, 1-10, Guy R. Detrick Donna Detrick Fast Forward, Incorporated, and Northeast Container Corporation v. Panalpina, Incorporated Panalpina Air Freight, Incorporated, and Multi-Modal Freight Systems, Incorporated Multi-Modal Freight Systems of Virginia Sylvan Friedman American Motor Lines, Incorporated Baltimore Freightways, Incorporated Blue Star Freight Lines, Incorporated General Motor Lines, Incorporated Hagerstown Motor Express, Incorporated Jennifer Motor Express, Incorporated Maryland Transport and Storage Company Mills Trucking, Incorporated National Motor Lines, Incorporated New Windsor Express, Incorporated South Carolina Motor Express, Incorporated Tidewater Trucking Company, Incorporated U.S. Motor Express, Incorporated U.S. Transport Group Vista Motor Express, Incorporated John Does, 1-10 · Curtis Haskins Mary Ann Haskins v. Farmers Home Administration Lynn F. Smith Wallace Edland Elwin Manicke John Does
  3. “In summary, where a plaintiff has come forth with an excuse for his delay that is anything but frivolous, the burden of production shifts to the. defendant to show at least some actual prejudice. If he does so, the plaintiff must then persuade the court that such claims of prejudice are either illusory or relatively insignificant when compared to the force of his excuse. At that point, the court must exercise its discretion by weighing the relevant factors — time, excuse, and prejudice.”
    3 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.