Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 33 F.3d 1005 - Broken Bow Ranch, Inc. v. Farmers Home Administration

Broken Bow Ranch, Inc. v. Farmers Home Administration’s Empirical Analysis

33 F.3d 1005 · 1994

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
August 2016
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably In Re Dennis Leroy Saxman (2003), Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Rogers (1995)

14 federal appellate · 1 district ·

170199420002010decided

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. § 1225 · 11 U.S.C. § 1228 · 28 U.S.C. § 158

Relies on Kubicik v. Apex Oil Co. · Lewis v. United States, Farmers Home Administration · Vekco, Inc. v. Federal Land Bank · Rowley v. Yarnall

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

  1. “income which is received by the debtor and which is not reasonably necessary to be expended (A) for the maintenance or support of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor; or (B) for the payment of expenditures necessary for the continuation, preservation, and operation of the debtor's business.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a fact-intensi~e inquiry into whether debtor has `income which is in excess of that reasonably required for maintenance and continuation of [its) farming operation from one year to the next.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the extent to which (1) the order leaves the bankruptcy court nothing to do but execute the order; (2) delay in obtaining review would prevent the aggrieved party from obtaining effective relief; and (3) a later reversal on that issue would require recommencement of the entire proceeding.”
    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.