In Re Huffy Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 157
Relies on Woburn Associates v. Kahn · Chateaugay Corporation v. Ltv Corporation Ltv State of New York · Reliable Electric Co. v. Olson Construction Co. · Grady v. Ah Robins Company Incorporated · Lemelle v. Universal Mfg. 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“That contingent claims are dischargea-ble in bankruptcy makes sense for reasons well-stated by the court in Baldwin-United noting that the combined effect of a broad definition of claim and a process for estimating certain remote claims is to: ... bring all claims of whatever nature into the bankruptcy estate, and to give all claimants the same opportunity to share in any distribution from the estate. No longer will some creditors enjoy a windfall or effectively be denied any recovery based upon the provability or allowability of their claims and the financial status of the debtor after bankruptcy. Equally important, Congress has insured that the debtor will receive a complete discharge of his debts and a real fresh start, without the threat of lingering claims “riding through” the bankruptcy-”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Lipa
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.