In Re Howley’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. § 522 · 11 U.S.C. § 541 · 28 U.S.C. § 157 · 48 U.S.C. § 1392 · 48 U.S.C. § 821
Relies on Granville-Smith v. Granville-Smith · Burlington & Missouri River Railroad v. Thompson · In Re Ginther · State Ex Rel. Childress v. Anderson · In Re Hutchinson
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The first argument made by the Trustee is that the Per Capita Payments are property of the estate and not subject to the 11 U.S.C. § 541 (c)(2) exclusion for beneficial interests of the debtor held in a trust. Doc. 28, pp. 3-5. He cites numerous cases, including In re McDonald, 353 B.R. 287, 293-94 (Bankr.D.Kan.2006), from this district. Debtor does not refute this position. Doc. 30. Indeed, by taking the position that the payments are exempt, Debtor is conceding that they are property of the estate, since it is only property of the estate which can be exempted from the estate.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Howley
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.