In Re Trudell’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 11 U.S.C. § 1107 · 11 U.S.C. § 1306 · 11 U.S.C. § 341 · 11 U.S.C. § 522 · 11 U.S.C. § 707 · 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 158
Relies on Owen v. Owen · Downs v. Cooper / · Grosslight Liberty State Bank and Trust v. Grosslight · Lucius v. McLemore · In Re Colvin
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the appropriate relief in this instance is ... simply a recognition that Trustee’s objection has been rendered moot by the Trudells’ premature expenditure of the refund claimed. Indeed, it is fair to ask why the court even needed to address Trustee’s actual objections to the exemptions claimed given that the refunds are no longer part of the estate and would not be exemptible even if they are ultimately recovered.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Chambers
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.