In Re Morrison’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 11 U.S.C. § 341 · 11 U.S.C. § 707 · 28 U.S.C. § 151 (Bankruptcy Amendments) · 28 U.S.C. § 157
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Lamie v. United States Trustee · Smith v. United States
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.
“so plain, so clear, so unambiguous that the [c]ourt need look no further to determine its meaning ... then how could [so many] courts have interpreted it one way and [so many other] courts have interpreted it in exactly the opposite way? Doesn't the concept of 'plain' meaning carry with it the implication that the same meaning would be 'plain'— ordinary, literal and obvious — to every reader?”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Johnson v. Zimmer“whether the individuals in the [debtor’s] house are acting as a single economic unit. Thus, a household will include individuals who are financially dependent on a debtor, individuals who financially support a debtor, and individuals whose income or expenses are inter-mingled or interdependent with a debtor.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Ford
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.