McKendry Resolution Trust Corporation v. H McKendry’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Swanson v. Comm'r (2003), In Re: Thomas Banks (2001)
7 district ·
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 Brown III v. Felsen · D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance · Ristaino v. Ross · Paul v. Monts · Clark v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc.
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... [there are] two distinct issues in a nondisehargeability proceeding. The first, the establishment of the debt itself, is governed by the state statute of limitations — if suit is not brought within the time period allotted under state law, the debt cannot be established. However, the question of the dischargeability of the debt under the Bankruptcy Code is a distinct issue gov erned solely by the limitations periods established by bankruptcy law.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Schafer · Kaleta v. Sokolow“Except as provided in subsection (a)(3)(B) of this section, the debtor shall be discharged from a debt of a kind specified in paragraph (2), (4), or (6) of subsection (a) of this section, unless, on request of the creditor to whom such debt is owed, and after notice and a hearing, the court determines such debt to be excepted from discharge under paragraph (2), (4), or (6), as the case may be, of subsection (a) of this section.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It would make little sense to impose a sixty day filing period for claims of nondis-chargeability under Rule 4007(c) only to have the question of the timeliness of the claim determined by a state statute of limitations. We do not believe such was the intent of Congress.”
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.