Stoecker Raleigh’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 115 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Frietsch v. Refco, Inc. (1995), In Re Dennis Leroy Saxman (2003)
22 federal appellate · 2 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. § 506
Relies on United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. · Butner v. United States · Connecticut National Bank v. Germain · Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co. · Miree v. County Georgia Phillips
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 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e can dispose quickly of the trustee’s contention that the bankruptcy judge was right to disallow the proof of claim, without leave to amend, because compliance with Rule 3001 is “mandatory.” 143 B.R. at 130. All that the rule says, so far as bears on this case, is that the filing of a proof of claim with the required documentation is prima facie evidence that the claim is valid. Fed. R.Bankr.P. 3001(c), (d), (f). If the documentation is missing, the creditor cannot rest on the proof of claim. It does not follow that he is forever barred from establishing the claim. Nothing in the principles or practicalities of bankruptcy or in the language of any rule or statute justifies so disproportionate a sanction for a harmless error.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“contract seem[s] clear on its face, [it, nonetheless, implicates] certain background facts [that] show that its plain meaning is not its true meaning--that the parties couldn't have meant what they seem to have said, that they must have been using words in a special way.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[P]rejudgment interest is part of the relief sought by the plaintiff to rectify the defendant's wrong.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3291, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4265, 3 Cal. Bankr. Ct. Rep. 68 in Re Edward J. Shoen in Re James P. Shoen in Re Aubrey Johnson in Re John Dodds in Re William Carty, Debtors. Edward J. Shoen James Shoen Aubrey Johnson John M. Dodds William Carty Amerco v. Samuel W. Shoen Cecilia M. Hanlon, A/K/A Cecilia M. Shoen-Hanlon Katrina Carlson, A/K/A Katrina Shoen-Carlson Samwill, Inc. Kattydid, Inc. Mickl, Inc., in Re Edward J. Shoen James P. Shoen Aubrey Johnson John Dodds William Carty, Debtors. Samuel W. Shoen Cecilia M. Hanson, A/K/A Cecilia M. Shoen-Hanson Katrina Carlson, A/K/A Katrina Shoen-Carlson Samwill, Inc., Now Called Katabasis International, Inc. Cemar, Inc. Kattydid, Inc. Mickl, Inc. v. Edward J. Shoen James Shoen Aubrey Johnson John M. Dodds William Carty Amerco · in Re Edward J. Shoen
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.