In Re Waldo’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 11 U.S.C. § 105 · 11 U.S.C. § 329 · 11 U.S.C. § 330 · 11 U.S.C. § 362 · 11 U.S.C. § 522 · 11 U.S.C. § 523 · 11 U.S.C. § 524
Relies on Johnson v. Home State Bank · Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare v. Davenport · Central Virginia Community College v. Katz · In Re Charles Ellsworth Krohn AKA Charles E. Krohn, Appellant/debtor · Easley v. Pettibone Michigan Corp.
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any attorney representing a debtor in a case under this title, or in connection with such a case, whether or not such attorney applies for compensation under this title, shall file with the court a statement of the compensation paid or agreed to be paid, if such payment or agreement was made after one year before the date of the filing of the petition, for services rendered or to be rendered in contemplation of or in connection with the case by such attorney, and the source of such compensation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Ortiz“(19) ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS: the parties specifically agree that the services contemplated in this contract of employment DO NOT include representing Client, either as a Plaintiff or Defendant, in any Adversary Proceeding filed in or in connection with this case. Should Attorney agree to represent Client in an adversary proceeding, a different contract of employment shall be executed between the parties under such terms and conditions as the parties deem mutually acceptable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Lawson
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.