In Re: Paul A. Werthen, Debtor. Paul A. Werthen v. Kathleen Werthen’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently February 2020
3 federal appellate · 8 district ·
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
Relies on Grogan v. Garner · Horace Dunbar v. Lottie E Dunbar · Audubon v. Shufeldt · Palmacci v. Umpierrez · Brandt v. Repco Printers & Lithographics, Inc.
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a debt that accrues before, on, or after the date of the order for relief in a case under this title, including interest that accrues on that debt as provided under applicable nonbankruptcy law [owed to] a former spouse [and that is] in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support ... without regard to whether such debt is expressly so designated.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Pritchett · In re Rogowski“[t]he federal courts have been unwilling to treat the label applied by the divorce court as controlling for Bankruptcy Code purposes. Nominally, the critical issue is whether the divorce court judge “intended” a particular award to be for support or for something else. In practice, courts look at a range of factors, including the language used by the divorce court and whether the award seems designed to assuage need, as discerned from the structure of the award and the financial circumstances of the recipients.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the bankruptcy court's findings of fact for clear error and afford[] de novo review to its conclusions of law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dewitt v. Stewart
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.