Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 42 B.R. 39 - In Re Petersen

In Re Petersen’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
September 2012
most recently cited

2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently September 2012

2 district · 1 state decisions

601984199020002010decided

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. § 105 · 11 U.S.C. § 108 · 11 U.S.C. § 362

Relies on Johnson v. First National Bank · Bank of the Commonwealth v. Bevan · Jenkins v. Peet (In Re Jenkins) · Hamblen v. Federal Savings & Loan Insurance · First Financial Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Winkler

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

  1. “The Oregon execution procedure, O.R.S. 23.410-23.600, allows the judgment debtor to redeem the property within one year of the date of its sale upon payment of the purchase money, any accrued interest and any taxes and prior liens the purchaser may have been required to pay. The redeemer must give the purchaser not more than 30 days notice of his intent to redeem. During the redemption period the purchaser is entitled to possession of the purchased property (unless leased) and to the rents and profits therefrom. If redemption is not timely made, the purchaser is entitled to a sheriff’s deed. From the date of the sale the judgment debtor has only bare legal title to the property sold. He must take further legal steps to reacquire full title. In re Petersen, supra at 40 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “These courts have all held that § 362 does not toll the running of the debtor’s statutory period of redemption afforded by the applicable state law. Each court has found that under its state law no legal “act” or “proceeding” within the meaning of § 362(a)(l)-(8) is required of a party after a sale of the property to consummate the acquisition of clear title in the hands of the purchaser at the end of the redemption period. Such acquisition results solely from the passage of time. The words Congress chose to describe the matters stayed by § 362 evoke an image of the requirement of a positive legal step.”
    1 later decision 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.