Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 36 F.3d 450 - Simpson Simpson v. J Penner a

Simpson Simpson v. J Penner a’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
1
states following
October 2018
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably In Re Popkin & Stern (2000), In Re: Eric Blatstein (1999)

6 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

160199020002010decided

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 Barnhill v. Johnson · Jones v. Atchison · Smith v. Revie · 127 Ill. 2d 209 - Tompkins State Bank v. Niles · Jones v. Atchison

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

  1. “The trustee may avoid any transfer (including any transfer to or for the benefit of an insider under an employment contract) of an interest of the debtor in property, or any obligation (including any obligation to or for the benefit of an insider under an employment contract) incurred by the debtor, that was made or incurred on or within 2 years before the date of the filing of the petition, if the debtor voluntarily or involuntarily — made such transfer or incurred such obligation with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any entity to which the debtor was or became, on or after the date that such transfer was made or such obligation was incurred, indebted!.]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The Brajkovic court, unlike the Atchison court, does not give state law its full effect. Under Texas law, the beneficiary never possesses the disclaimed property. Dyer v. Eckols, 808 S.W.2d 531, 534 (Tex.Ct.App.-Houston 1991). Thus, the Brajkovic court erred in concluding that under Texas law, the property of the decedent shifts to the first beneficiary and then to the next beneficiaries.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “held that after the execution of the disclaimer, the debtor did not have a property interest to transfer [under Illinois law].”
    2 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.