In Re Gwinn’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently January 2015 · most notably 17 493 71902 Roach, Seidel v. Larson (1985)
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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. § 105 · 11 U.S.C. § 1124 · 11 U.S.C. § 1322 · 11 U.S.C. § 1325 · 11 U.S.C. § 362 · 26 U.S.C. § 166
Relies on Local Loan Co. v. Hunt · Continental Illinois Nat Bank Trust Co of Chicago v. Chicago R I & P Ry Co · Di Pierro v. Taddeo · Burns v. Alcala · Jones v. Liberty Glass Co.
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An examination of the reported cases indicates that five basic positions have emerged. A small minority of courts have held that deceleration/reinstitution is not available once the mortgagee has exercised his contractual right to accelerate, regardless of whether or not the mortgagee has obtained a judgment. See In re Soderlund [ 18 B.R. 12 ] (Dist.Ct. [(S.D.Ohio 1981)]), supra; Matter of Allen, 17 B.R. 119 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ohio 1981); In re La Paglia, 8 B.R. 937 (Bkrtcy.E.D.N.Y.1981). Another, more sizeable group of cases have held that while deceleration is possible prior to judgment, it is no longer available once the mortgagee has obtained a judgment on the mortgage note. See In re Anderson [ 16 B.R. 697 , (Bkrtcy.S.D.Ohio 1982) ], supra; In re White, 22 B.R. 542 (Bkrtcy.D.Del.1982); In re Mattocks, 15 B.R. 379 (Bkrtcy.E.D.N.Y.1981); In re Maiorino, 15 B.R. 254 (Bkrtcy.D.Conn.1981); In re Jenkins, 14 B.R. 748 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ill.1981); In re Land, 14 B.R. 132 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ohio 1981); Matter of Wilson, 11 B.R. 986 (Bkrtcy.S.D.N.Y.1981); In re Pearson, 10 B.R. 189 (Bkrtcy.E.D.N.Y.1981); In re Canady, 9 B.R. 428 (Bkrtcy.D.Conn.1981); In re Britton, 35 B.R. 373 (N.D.Ind.1982). While this is a more widely held view than the per se prohibition espoused by the first group, it is still the minority view and has had only one recent convert. In re Clark, C.C.H. Bankr.Serv. If 69,341, 32 B.R. 711 [(W.D.Wis.1983)]. The third approach likewise allows deceleration and reinstitution, but does no”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Matter of Skelly“"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. Const. Art. VI.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Schnupp“(b) Subject to subsections (a) and (c) of this section, the plan may— (2) modify the rights of holders of secured claims, other than a claim secured only by a security interest in real property that is the debtor’s principal residence ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Bradshaw
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.