Harris Pine Mills Maitland’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Pegasus Gold Corporation v. J (2005), In Re: Gary Lazar (2001)
10 district ·
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
Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · United Families of America v. Kendrick · Delaware v. New York · United Families of America v. Kendrick · International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union Local 37 v. Boyd
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the district court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all cases under title 11. (b) Notwithstanding any Act of Congress that confers exclusive jurisdiction on a court or courts other than the district courts, the district courts shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of all civil proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11. [[Image here]]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“matters that arise only in bankruptcy cases ... [and] are not based on any right expressly created by title 11, but nevertheless, would have no existence outside the bankruptcy. Maitland v. Mitchell (In re Harris Pine Mills) , 44 F.3d 1431 , 1435 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting In re Wood , 825 F.2d 90 , 96-97 (5th Cir. 1987) ). These two terms are, in turn, each distinct from claims or issues”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[proceedings that involve a cause of action created or determined by a statutory provision of Title 11”); Montana v. Goldin (In re Pegasus Gold Corp.), 394 F.3d 1189, 1193 (9th Cir.2005) (describing matters”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.