Mirant Corp Mlw Llc’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably United States v. Murillo-Lopez (2006), Sanchez v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co. (In Re Sanchez) (2007)
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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
Relies on United States v. Whiting Pools, Inc. · Morton v. Mancari · National Labor Relations Board v. Bildisco & Bildisco · Trw Inc v. Adelaide Andrews · Celotex Corporation v. Edwards
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Therefore, upon remand, the district court should consider applying a more rigorous standard to the rejection of the [subject contract]. If the district court decides that a more rigorous standard is required, then it might adopt a standard by which it would authorize rejection of an executory power contract only if the debtor can show that it "burdens the estate, [ ] that, after careful scrutiny, the equities balance in favor of rejecting" that power contract, and that rejection of the contract would further the Chapter 11 goal of permitting the successful rehabilitation of debtors."”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief Can Be Granted [Docket No. 20] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: 1. Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Wisconsin Power and Light Co. REMAIN. 2. Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Alliant Energy Corporation are DISMISSED and Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint within thirty days from the date of this Order to clearly state its claims against Defendant Alliant Energy Corporation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (”
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.