Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 513 F.3d 318 - Pasquina v. Cunningham

Pasquina v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis

513 F.3d 318 · 2008

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
states following
July 2020
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Wadleigh v. Commissioner (2010), Fahey v. Massachusetts Department of Revenue (2015)

4 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

280200820102020decided

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. § 522 · 11 U.S.C. § 523 · 11 U.S.C. § 701

Relies on Grogan v. Garner · Local Loan Co. v. Hunt · Owen v. Owen · Weinstein Llc v. W · Harris v. Herman (In Re Herman)

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

  1. “[T]his title does not affect any right of a creditor to offset a mutual debt owing by such creditor to the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title against a claim of such creditor against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case....”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “By the plain language of the statute, exemptions under § 522(c) persist beyond the termination of the case, making the property subject to an exemption unavailable for the satisfaction of pre-petition debt (other than for the categories noted in § 522(c) itself) .... Moreover, it is a basic principle of bankruptcy law that exemptions are determined when a petition is filed. To interpret § 522(c) as conferring merely an ephemeral exemption, subject to post-termination events, would undermine that basic principle and its relationship to the fresh start policy of the Bankruptcy Code.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A] central purpose of the [Bankruptcy Code] is to provide a procedure by which certain insolvent debtors can reorder their affairs, make peace with their creditors, and enjoy 'a new opportunity in life with a clear field for future effort, unhampered by the pressure and discouragement of preexisting debt.'”
    2 later decisions 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.