Baldwin v. Credit Based Asset Servicing & Securitization’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate ·

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

1. “The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that, before property can be taken, notice and an opportunity for a hearing be provided. Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950). In general, notice must be “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Id. at 314, 339 U.S. 306 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 . The Due Process Clause does not require that an interested party actually receive notice. Crum v. Vincent, 493 F.3d 988, 993 (8th Cir.2007). “Where the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules specify the notice required prior to entry of an order, due process generally entitles a party to receive the notice specified before an order binding the party will be afforded preclusive effect.” In re Banks, 299 F.3d 296 , 302 (4th Cir.2002). See also In re Ruehle, 412 F.3d 679, 683-84 (6th Cir.2005); In re Hanson, 397 F.3d 482, 485-86 (7th Cir.2005).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. USAA Federal Savings Bank v. Otto (In Re Otto)

2. “A judgment is void if the rendering court lacked jurisdiction or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bell v. Pulmosan Safety Equip. Corp.