In re Pyatt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 9 district ·

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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “an entity, other than a custodian, in possession, custody, or control, during the case, of property that the trustee may use, sell, or lease under section 363 of this title ... shall deliver to the trustee, and account for, such property or the value of such property, unless such property is of inconsequential value or benefit to the estate.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Newman v. Schwartzer (In Re Newman) · Scarver v. Ellis (In re McKeever)

2. “On June 26, 2009, the Debtors filed their Petition for Relief pursuant to Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. On July 7, 2009, the Debtors filed their initial Schedule B indicating the sum of $513.00 was being held in a joint checking account (Doc. No. 12). However, the Debtors failed to claim any property as exempt on their Schedule C. On July 10,2009, the Debtors filed their Amended Schedule C which included the $513.00 as exempt pursuant to Art. 10 § 4(a)(2) of the Florida Constitution and pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 222.061 (Doc. No. 15). On July 14,2009, this Courted entered its Order Striking the Amendment since the Amendment failed to contain an appropriate proof of service in compliance with Fed. R. Bank. P. 1009(a) (Doc. No. 18). On August 5, 2009, the Debtors filed their Amended Schedules and complied with the requirements set forth in Fed. R. Bank. P. 1009(a) (Doc. No. 20). On August 19, 2009, Diane L. Jensen, the Chapter 7 Trustee (the Trustee), filed her Objection to Debtors’ Claim of Exemptions (Doc. No. 25). The Trustee objected to the Debtors claim of exempt property consisting of everything listed on the Debtors’ Amended Schedule C except for the Jaguar and the Debtors’ IRAs. In her Objection the Trustee specifically objected to the Debtors’ bank account totaling the sum of$5,862.38 as of the date of the filing, rather than the sum scheduled. The Trustee argue[d] that because the funds in question were still in the Debtors’ bank account on the date they filed thei”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brubaker v. Jensen (In Re Brubaker)

3. “Precode practice suggests that § 542(a) permits a trustee to compel turnover only from entities which have control of property of the estate or its proceeds at the time of the turnover demand. Pre-code practice is relevant in construing the bankruptcy code. See Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410, 419-20 , 112 S.Ct. 773 , 116 L.Ed.2d 903 (1992). It is especially instructive when interpretation of a “judicially created concept” is at issue, Midlantic Nat’l Bank v. N.J. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 474 U.S. 494, 501 , 106 S.Ct. 755 , 88 L.Ed.2d 859 (1986), and turnover proceedings were an uncodified creation of the courts before enactment of the current code. The leading case on pre 1978 turnover proceedings is Maggio v. Zeitz (In re Luma Camera Service, Inc.), 333 U.S. 56 , 68 S.Ct. 401 , 92 L.Ed. 476 (1948). There, the president of a bankrupt enterprise was ordered to turn over property which he did not have. He was jailed for contempt when he did not comply with the order. The Supreme Court held that the president was not a proper defendant in a turnover action, for turnover proceedings are permissible “only when the evidence satisfactorily establishes the existence of the property or its proceeds, and possession thereof by the defendant at the time of the proceeding.” Id. at 63-64 , 333 U.S. 56 , 68 S.Ct. 401 , 92 L.Ed. 476 (emphasis added). The use of a turnover remedy was inappropriate “if, at the time it is instituted, the property and its proceeds have already been dissipated.” Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Fleming