In Re Hellman’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently August 2012
1 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 Sandberg v. Borstadt · Carroll v. Holliman · Woodward v. People's National Bank · Dallemand v. Mannon
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“13-54-107. Exemptions in bankruptcy. The exemptions provided in section 522(d) of the federal bankruptcy code of 1978 (Title 11 of the United States Code), as amended, are denied to residents of this state. Exemptions authorized to be claimed by residents of this state shall be limited to those exemptions expressly provided by the statutes of this state. 38-41-201. Homestead exemption. Every homestead in the state of Colorado occupied as a home by the owner thereof or his family shall be exempt from execution and attachment arising from any debt, contract, or civil obligation not exceeding in value the sum of twenty thousand dollars in actual cash value in excess of any liens or encumbrances on the homesteaded property in existence at the time of any levy of execution thereon.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In re Parrish · In Re Parrish“As to the exemption provided in subsection (e), the exemption applies to “the household goods owned and used by the head of a family or owned by such head and used by his dependents...” Section 13-54-101(4) defines the “head of a family” as “any person who supports or who by law is responsible for the necessities of life of one or more dependents...” It has been stipulated that both a husband and a wife are by law responsible for the necessity of life of one or more dependents. Again referring to the mandate of the Colorado Supreme Court and the Colorado Constitution requiring liberal construction, we conclude that as to the household goods owned by the husband, he is entitled in determining the assets of his bankrupt estate available to satisfy claims of creditors to the exemption provided in subsection (e). We also hold that the household goods owned by the wife and used by her and her dependents are includable in the assets of her bankrupt estate, but that she is entitled in computing the assets of her bankrupt estate available to satisfy her creditors to the exemption provided in subsection (e).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Alvarez“. . . property occupied and used by husband and wife as their home is entitled to a homestead exemption, whether occupied by the husband and wife under a lease for a term of years or by virtue of ownership of fee simple title”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Parrish
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.