Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 4 Ohio App. 3d 228 - Matavich v. Budak

4 Ohio App. 3d 228 - Matavich v. Budak’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
3
states following
November 2007
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently November 2007

7 state decisions

50198219902000decided

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. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005)

Relies on 22 Ohio App. 67 - Pennsylvania Rd. Co. v. Bell

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

  1. “(A) Every person who is domiciled in this state may hold property exempt from execution, garnishment, attachment, or sale to satisfy a judgment or order as follows: (16) Any other property that is specifically exempted from execution, attachment, garnishment, or sale by federal statutes other than the "Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978,” 92 Stat. 2549 , 11 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., as amended.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The right of any person to any future payment under this subchapter shall not be transferable or assignable, at law or in equity, and none of the moneys paid or payable or rights existing under this sub-chapter shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““Every person who is domiciled in this state may hold property exempt from execution, garnishment, attachment, or sale to satisfy a judgment or order * * (Emphasis added.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.