Walden v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis
515 F.3d 1204 · 2008
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Piazza v. Nueterra Healthcare Physical Therapy, LLC (2013), AFI Holding, Inc. v. Brown (2008)
7 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. § 324 · 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990)
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Catlin v. United States · Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co. · Cash Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Shine · United States v. Brown
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In that case, the court wrote that the purpose of the finality requirement is judicial economy but that judicial efficiency would be turned on its head if the court were to delay reviewing the trustee appointment until after the entire bankruptcy proceeding concluded. The court [in In re Marvel] noted that liberal finality considerations in orders appointing bankruptcy trustees are necessary because these orders cannot be meaningfully postponed to the bankruptcy’s conclusion. The [In re Marvel] court wrote that if it did not have jurisdiction no meaningful review of the order appointing the trustee could ever take place. It would strain credulity to suggest that a reviewing court would jettison years of bankruptcy infighting, compromise, and final determinations solely for the purpose of reversing on the issue of the identity of the trustee.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“does not require that a ‘party in interest' request the removal”). 3 . Compare Tamecki v. Frank (In re Tamecki) , 229 F.3d 205 , 207 (3d Cir.2000) (holding”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“if it `ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.'”
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.