In Re Caldwell’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently February 2011 · most notably Barnette v. Evans (1982), Taylor v. Widdowson (In Re Taylor) (1981)
1 federal appellate · 3 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. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 11 U.S.C. § 341 · 11 U.S.C. § 362
Relies on Pepper v. Litton · 414 F. Supp. 1113 - In Re Penny · Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency v. James (In Re James)
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) The filing of a petition under section 301, 302, or 303 of this title does not operate as a stay— (1) under subsection (a) of this section, of the commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding against the debtor”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Matter of Van Riper · In Re Smith“It therefore is incumbent upon this Court to make inquiry and determine from the facts and circumstances presented, if a creditor is seeking to utilize the criminal process as a means of extracting a preference not accorded other creditors similarly situated. On the other hand, if a creditor’s actions are nothing more than aiding and assisting the prosecuting authorities in their rightful duties in protecting society by punishment for violation of the criminal laws, then such is obviously what Congress intended by enacting 11 U.S.C. § 362 (b)(1). In re Caldwell, 5 B.R. 740, 742 (Bankr.W.D.Va.1980).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The principles set forth in Pepper requires (sic) this Court to prohibit one creditor from receiving preferential treatment ahead of other creditors in the same class. In the case at bar, [the creditor], being a general unsecured creditor, must be accorded the same treatment in the allowance and payment upon its claim as other general unsecured creditors receive.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.