Cameron v. Law’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

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

1. “To read these sections, as Bigus urges, to mean that upon the entry of a satisfaction order all judgment liens against the bankrupt’s property in the proper county, regardless of when they were otained, become void and unenforceable would ignore the statement in sec. 806.-15(1), Stats., that upon the entry of a satisfaction order a judgment cannot “THEREAFTER become a lien.” [Emphasis added.] Had Bigus’ interpretation been intended, the last sentence of sec. 806.15(1) would probably have read: “All judgment liens are rendered void by the entry of a satisfaction order and cannot be enforced against any real property of the discharged person. Further, Bigus’ interpretation is not true to the language of sec. 806.19(4), Stats., and, in effect, rewrites the last sentence to read: The entry of such order of satisfaction of judgment shall bar any other action in the courts of this state against such bankrupt person or his property based upon the judgment so satisfied. We do not think it proper in this case to so write the statute. We interpret sec. 806.15(1), Stats., together with sec. 806.19(4) to mean that a judgment lien can be enforced AGAINST THE BANKRUPT’S PROPERTY IF THE JUDGMENT WAS OBTAINED BEFORE A SATISFACTION ORDER is entered pursuant to sec. 806.19(4). This interpretation fairly protects claimants who took their claims to court before a bankruptcy discharge and obtained judgment liens against property in that county without frustrating the bankruptcy goal of relieving ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Spore

2. “We are uncertain, in the absence of any legislative history, as to exactly what the Wisconsin legislature intended to accomplish by the provisions in question with regard to the extinguishment of judgment liens. If the intent was based upon the belief that the holder of a judgment lien irrespective of long holding is a second class lien claimant not entitled to the protection accorded in bankruptcy to other lien holders, such as mortgagees, then the statute fails to articulate that intent sufficiently to persuade us of the fact.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Spore