In Re DePugh’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 105 · 11 U.S.C. § 502 · 11 U.S.C. § 726 · 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 1408 · 28 U.S.C. § 157 · 28 U.S.C. § 1927
Relies on Chambers v. Nasco, Inc. · State v. Simpson · Pavelic v. Marvel Entertainment Group · Raleigh v. Illinois Department of Revenue · Southmark Corporation Southmark Corporation v. Coopers & Lybrand
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where a debtor is forced to incur attorneys’ fees objecting to deficient proofs of claim and attending hearings for which the creditor’s counsel is woefully unprepared, it is not only the debtor that bears these costs but also every other unsecured creditor, as every penny used to pay a debtor’s attorney’s priority claim for fees necessarily reduces the amount available to pay other creditors. Additionally, the practice of filing skeletal proofs of claim and requiring the debtor to object before producing documents that should have been produced to begin with could, in the aggregate, cost Chapter 13 debtors substantial sums that could be put to better use proposing and maintaining payments on a feasible plan of reorganization.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Minbatiwalla
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.