In re Broughton Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 11 U.S.C. § 1106 · 11 U.S.C. § 330 · 11 U.S.C. § 521 · 28 U.S.C. § 1334
Relies on Lamie v. United States Trustee · Turner v. Rogers · Stern v. Marshall · Reading Company v. Brown · Rousey v. Jacoway
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.
“[A]ll courts interpreting Pro-Snax have reached the conclusion that some sort of retrospective analysis is required. Lower courts have adopted differing views of what type of retrospective analysis should be employed and have disagreed whether a prospective analysis may be considered in determining whether Pro-Snax is satisfied.”
2 later decisions 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.