Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 41 BR 36 - In Re Lawrence

In Re Lawrence’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
March 2013
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently March 2013

1 federal appellate · 1 district ·

1701984199020002010decided

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. § 552

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

  1. “... this Court is conscientious in interpreting the Code in a manner consistent with the “fresh start” and “rehabilitative” themes of bankruptcy law. The Code was not designed with farmer bankruptcies in mind. There are many special problems inherent in a farmer bankruptcy case. Aside from the constant fluctuations in prices of farm products, the seasonal nature of grain farming and required cash flow and financing problems require special consideration. To provide a debtor with a source of cash which is unencumbered and can be used to revitalize a business (is) part of a “fresh start” and clearly facilitates rehabilitation. 41 B.R. at 38.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. In Re Vanas
  2. “is a very limited one intended to cover the situation where a creditor holds a security interest in raw materials and after the filing of a bankruptcy petition, the debtor changes their form by converting them into inventory.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. Bankr. L. Rep. P 71,144, 1 Ucc rep.serv.2d 543 Richard L. Smith v. Dairymen, Inc., and the Farm Loan Corporation, and United States of America, Acting Through Farmers Home Adm., of the Usda, United Virginia Bank, and First National Bank of Lexington
  3. “milk produced post-petition is an asset coming into existence totally after the filing and not intended to be covered by the 552(b) exception.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. Bankr. L. Rep. P 71,144, 1 Ucc rep.serv.2d 543 Richard L. Smith v. Dairymen, Inc., and the Farm Loan Corporation, and United States of America, Acting Through Farmers Home Adm., of the Usda, United Virginia Bank, and First National Bank of Lexington

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.