Helm v. Helm (In Re Helm)’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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.

1. “This court is unable to view the Calhoun opinion in such a restrictive manner. Judge Kennedy's writing is a carefully detailed construct, a literal handbook for bankruptcy judges, and to perceive it only as a narrow assumption-of-debt case is to view the world through the wrong end of a telescope. We take Calhoun as having general applicability to all support cases brought under 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(5).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Singer v. Singer · In Re Robert F. Singer, Debtor. Lethia A. Singer v. Robert F. Singer

2. “There is a clean geometry about Calhoun . The operative portion of the opinion, lining out the court’s reasoning and creating a new cannon for the bankruptcy judge’s guidance on remand, establishes four separate levels of judicial analysis. [footnote omitted] They are arranged logically and in ascending order of refinement, so that any given one need be applied only if the one immediately preceding has not produced the solution. Under this progressive formula we are directed to consider whether: (a) the intent of the state court or the parties was to create a support obligation; (b) whether the support provision has the actual effect of providing necessary support; (c) the amount of support is so excessive as to be unreasonable under traditional concepts of support, and finally; (d) if the amount of support is unreasonable, how much of it should be characterized as nondischargeable for purposes of federal bankruptcy law. [emphasis in original] Id. at 220-21.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sullivan v. Sullivan (In Re Sullivan)

3. “This is not to say that bankruptcy courts are to totally ignore prior state court divorce decrees. In cases where it is clear that the state court has clearly and carefully considered the question of support in the context of a contested case ... then it is extremely unlikely that a bankruptcy court would make a contrary finding as to the true nature of the support obligation. (Emphasis in original). 48 B.R. at 220, n. 13.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Taylor v. Lineberry (In Re Lineberry)