Computer Engineering Associates Inc v. O’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “(b) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (i) of this section, the trustee may avoid any transfer of an interest of the debtor in property— (1) to or for the benefit of a creditor; (2) for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor before such transfer was made; (3) made while the debtor was insolvent; (4) made— (A) on or within 90 days before the date of the filing of the petition; or (B) between ninety days and one year before the date of the filing of the petition, if such creditor at the time of such transfer was an insider; and (5) that enables such creditor to receive more than such creditor would receive if — • (A) the case were a ease under chapter 7 of this title; (B) the transfer had not been made; and (C) such creditor received payment of such debt to the extent provided by the provisions of this title.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Murphy v. Arrow Electronics, Inc. (In Re RISCmanagement, Inc.) · Howison v. Milo Enterprises, Inc.

2. “To be an effective assignment, the assignor must divest itself of all right, interest, and control in the property assigned. Any act or words that show an intention to transfer all interests to the assignee are sufficient for a valid assignment; in other words, no specific or magic words are necessary for its formation. Partial assignments — i.e., an assignment of only part of a larger interest in property (e.g., assignment of 80% of accounts receivables) — are valid and enforceable. As the trustee points out, however, a mere promise to pay a debt out of a designated fund does not operate as an effective assignment where the assignor continues to control the fund; retention of control precludes the perfection of an assignment. Accordingly, our analysis centers on the parties’ intent in entering the June 1995 transactions and whether and to what extent CEA retained control over the Contract proceeds.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re K-Ram, Inc. · Murphy v. Arrow Electronics, Inc. (In Re RISCmanagement, Inc.)

3. “forfeited its right to appeal the bankruptcy court's determination by failing to raise it on appeal to the district court”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Woodman v. A C