Richman v. Straley’s Empirical Analysis
48 F.3d 1139 · 1995
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Gustave-Schmidt v. Chao (2002), Franklin Savings Corp. v. United States (1999)
19 federal appellate · 5 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
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 324 · 28 U.S.C. § 2671 · 28 U.S.C. § 2679 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680 · 28 U.S.C. § 586 (§ 224 of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 (Title 11))
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Perry v. Sindermann · United States v. Mitchell · Soberon v. United States · Berkovitz 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Section 586(b) gives the United States Trustee the power to appoint standing trustees subject to approval of the Attorney General. Generally, the power of removal is implicit in the power of appointment unless the appointment carries with it a definite term of office or a constitutional or statutory provision limits the removal power. ^4 if; ^4 H* Section 324(a) provides that “[t]he court, after notice and a hearing, may remove a trustee ... for cause.” Ms. Riehman urges us to apply this requirement to future cases in which the standing trustee might serve. Legislative history suggests to the contrary that section 324(a) applies only to an individual case in which the standing trustee is currently serving. Congress added section 324(b) to the statutory scheme to clarify that “unless the court orders otherwise, removal of a private trustee for cause in one case [pursuant to section 324(a) ] constitutes removal of that trustee in all other cases in which the trastee is serving.” Although Congress explicitly added the presumption that removal in one case would constitute removal in all current cases, it omitted any mention of future cases. This omission implies that no property right vests until actual assignment of the case. Because the standing trustee serves no definite term and Congress made no explicit provision to the contrary, the party with the power of appointment may terminate that appointment at any time by refusing to assign new cases to the standing trustee.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Allowing the same nonjudicial body to both appoint and terminate the appointment of standing trustees was consistent with the legislative intent for the statutory scheme for the appointment and removal of standing trustees; the cronyism and appearance of impropriety that the legislature sought to remedy was the old system which had standing trustees appearing before the judges who appointed them. 11 U.S.C.A. § 324(a, b); 28 U.S.C.A. § 586(b)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Dale Brookover“Id. (quoting Birkner, 771 P.2d at 1057 ). 22 We have concluded that defendants had the statutory authority to terminate Ms. Richman's appointment as standing trustee, thus the action was clearly of the kind that defendants are employed to perform. Ms. Richman now claims that Mr. Straley met”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Richman v. Straley
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.