In Re Walker’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 11 U.S.C. § 1322 · 11 U.S.C. § 502
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare v. Davenport · Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There is abundant legal authority for the proposition that mortgage notes, such as the one involved in this matter, are negotiable instruments governed by article 3 of the UCC. See, e.g., In re Carmichael, 448 B.R. 690, 693-94 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.2011) (collecting cases); see also In re AppOnline.com, Inc., 321 B.R. 614, 621-24 (E.D.N.Y.2003), aff'd on other grounds, 128 Fed.Appx. 171 (2d Cir.2005) [ (2d Cir.2004) ]; J.S. Judge & Co. v. Lilley, 28 Pa. D. & C. 3 (Phila.Mun.Ct.1937).”
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.