Miles v. Okun’s Empirical Analysis
430 F.3d 1083 · 2005
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Nelson v. Welch (2010), Rodas v. Seidlin (2011)
6 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
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. § 303 · 11 U.S.C. § 724 · 12 U.S.C. § 85 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1452 · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor · Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian · Avco Corporation v. Aero Lodge No 735 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(i) If the court dismisses a petition under this section other than on consent of all petitioners and the debtor, and if the debtor does not waive the right to judgment under this subsection, the court may grant judgment-— (1) against the petitioners and in favor of the debtor for— (A) costs; or (B) a reasonable attorney’s fee; or (2) against any petitioner that filed the petition in bad faith, for— (A) any damages proximately caused by such-filing; or (B) punitive damages.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] mere browse through the complex, detailed, and comprehensive provisions of the lengthy Bankruptcy Code demonstrates Congress’s intent to create a whole system under federal control which is designed to bring together and adjust all the rights and duties of creditors and embarrassed debtors alike. While it is true that bankruptcy law makes reference to state law at many points, the adjustment of rights and duties within the bankruptcy process itself is uniquely and exclusively federal. It is very unlikely that Congress intended to permit the superimposition of state remedies on the many activities that might be undertaken in the management of the bankruptcy process.... In short, the highly complex laws needed to constitute the bankruptcy courts and regulate the rights of debtors and creditors also underscore the need to jealously guard the bankruptcy process from even slight incursions and disruptions brought about by state malicious prosecution actions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[s]tate courts are not authorized to determine whether a person's claim for relief under a federal law, in a federal court, and within that court's exclusive jurisdiction, is an appropriate one.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.