Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 49 F.3d 499 - Michael v. Martinson

Michael v. Martinson’s Empirical Analysis

49 F.3d 499 · 1995

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
October 2011
most recently cited

2 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently October 2011

2 federal appellate ·

90199520002010decided

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. § 544

Relies on Robertson v. Peters · Probasco · Saghi v. Walsh (In Re Gurs) · Ucc v. Seaway Express Corp National Bank of Alaska Na · Gitts

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

  1. “When the Michaels filed their voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, they had not yet recorded a declaration of homestead as required by Mont.Code Ann. §§ 70-32-105, 106, 107. They also failed to list their home as exempt property on their bankruptcy Schedule B-4. Several months later, after the bankruptcy court had ordered the Michaels’ debts discharged, they recorded a declaration of homestead in Yellowstone County and filed an amended Schedule B-4 with the bankruptcy court, listing their home as exempt property. The trustee objected to the amendment and brought this adversary proceeding to obtain possession of the home.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The fact remains, however, that the Mi-chaels did not amend their bankruptcy schedules to claim the exemption until more than a year after filing their petition. When they did so, the trustee objected. Because the bankruptcy court ruled-incor-reetly-that section 544(a)(3) prevents the Michaels from claiming a homestead exemption after the petition date, it did not reach the separate question whether the Michaels could amend their schedules under the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a person who (1) at the instant the bankruptcy petition is filed purchases from the debtor; (2) for value; (3) in good faith; (4) without actual knowledge of any defect or limitation in title; (5) every interest in real property the debtor could have purported to convey without the terms of the conveyancing itself evidencing irregularity; (6) by an instrument that adheres to all formal requisites usually and regularly followed in the relevant jurisdiction; (7) as of the moment of purchase takes all unilateral steps to perfect the conveyance.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.