Hale v. U.S. Trustee’s Empirical Analysis
509 F.3d 1139 · 2007
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 105 · 11 U.S.C. § 329 · 11 U.S.C. § 341 · 28 U.S.C. § 455
Relies on Chambers v. Nasco, Inc. · Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg · State v. Simpson · Katuria E. Smith v. Tyson Marsh · Re James B Wood and Jethro P Hendersons
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Any attorney representing a debtor in a case under this title, or in connection with such a case, whether or not such attorney applies for compensation under this title, shall file with the court a statement of the compensation paid or agreed to be paid, if such payment or agreement was made after one year before the date of the filing of the petition, for services rendered or to be rendered in contemplation of or in connection with the case by such attorney, and the source of such compensation. (b) If such compensation exceeds the reasonable value of any such services, the court may cancel any such agreement, or order the return of any such payment, to the extent excessive, to— (1) the estate, if the property transferred— (A) would have been property of the estate; or (B) was to be paid by or on behalf of the debtor under a plan under chapter 11, 12, or 13 of this title; or (2) the entity that made such payment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Alvarado · In re Lee“We agree with the bankruptcy court that it should “not countenance Hale’s exclusion of critical and necessary services, or endorse the pretense of adequately advised and informed consent in Hale’s bankruptcy cases.” Although the court effectively barred Hale from assisting pro se debtors in a limited manner that allows debtors to remain pro se, the court ordered those sanctions in response to specific and repeated acts of incompetent and irresponsible representation. Under the specific facts of this case, we cannot say that the bankruptcy court abused its inherent power to impose sanctions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Brown
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.