Drenttel v. Jensen-Carter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “[A]n individual debtor may exempt from property of the estate the property listed in either paragraph (1) or, in the alternative, paragraph (2) of this subsection. (2)(A) any property that is exempt under ... State or local law that is applicable on the date of the filing of the petition at the place in which the debtor’s domicile has been located for the 180 days immediately preceding the date of the filing of the petition, or for a longer portion of such 180-day period than in any other place.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sheehan v. Ash · In Re Stone

2. “References to state exemption statutes do not invoke the entire law of the state. Instead, Congress used state-defined exemptions as part of a federal bankruptcy scheme, while limiting the application of state policies that impair those exemptions. The federal bankruptcy statute dictates the applicable exemptions, requiring the debtor to file in the designated district, and stating that the debtor is entitled to federal exemptions or the exemptions provided by the law of the state where the petition is filed. § 522(b)(2)(A). “This is a federal choice of law in which the choice has been made. That choice is the applicable state exemption law, and in this case the exemption law is [Minnesota]’s statutory homestead exemption. Whatever [Minnesotaj’s conflicts of law jurisprudence may be is simply irrelevant.” In re Arrol, 170 F.3d 934 , 936 (9th Cir. 1999). 3”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hanrahan v. Roberts (In Re Roberts)

3. “This rule is based on state interpretation of state law and may not apply with equal force in the context of a federal statute. Traditional concerns respecting the dignity and sovereignty of other states and limiting jurisdiction to the state borders are simply inconsistent with the national effect and supremacy of federal law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hanrahan v. Roberts (In Re Roberts)