In Re Almeida’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
4 district · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 362 · 11 U.S.C. § 521 · 11 U.S.C. § 544
Relies on Warth v. Seldin · United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd. · Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Mass. · Grella v. Salem Five Cent Savings Bank · Linkage Corp. v. Trustees of Boston University
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““the PSA required that all mortgages acquired thereunder to be funneled to [the] pool trustee, through the entity designated by the PSA as ‘depositor,’ .... A failure to follow this protocol-such as by direct assignment of the mortgage from the loan originator to the pool trustee, bypassing the depositor— would, the Debtor contends, constitute a breach of the PSA, a breach of fiduciary obligations under the PSA to investors, a breach of federal regulations, and an act giving rise to unfavorable tax consequences for the investors.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]s not a third party beneficiary of the PSA, and, ironically, he would appear to lack standing to object to any breaches of the terms of the PSA. It would appear to this Court that the investors who bought securities based upon the pooled mortgages would be the parties with standing to object to any defects in those mortgages resulting from any failure to abide by the express provisions of the PSA.”
2 later decisions 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.