In Re Miller’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 11 U.S.C. § 108 · 11 U.S.C. § 362 · 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 157
Relies on United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa · Whitestone Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Allstate Insurance · 58 Wis. 2d 99 - Mutual Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Wisconsin Wire Works · Hogsett v. Ellis · Larzelere v. Larzelere
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Boiled down, the controlling facts are fairly straightforward. The Debtor borrowed a large amount of money from the Bank. The Bank was given mortgages on real property located in Wisconsin and Michigan. After the Debtor defaulted, the Bank instituted a judicial foreclosure on the Wisconsin property and a foreclosure by advertisement on the Michigan property. The Bank, from its perspective, made a terrible unilateral mistake. It bid the entire amount of its debt in the Michigan foreclosure. The Debtor did not redeem the Michigan foreclosure deed and the Bank now owns the Michigan property. Because the value of the Michigan property is very likely less than what the Debtor owed the Bank, the Bank now wants to continue the Wisconsin foreclosure to reduce or eliminate its monetary loss. The Debtor’s perspective is far different. He asserts all debt owed to the Bank was fully satisfied as a result of the Michigan foreclosure. The Debtor takes the position that he owns the Wisconsin property free and clear of the Bank’s prior mortgage; the Wisconsin foreclosure action should be dismissed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.