Mitchell v. Anderson (In re Mitchell)’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 329 · 11 U.S.C. § 362 · 11 U.S.C. § 523 · 11 U.S.C. § 524 · 11 U.S.C. § 525 · 28 U.S.C. § 157 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Grogan v. Garner · Liteky et al United States · Hannah v. Larche · Kay v. Ehrler · 134 S. Ct. 1188 - Law v. Siegel
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If contempt is established, the injured party may be able to recover damages as a sanction for the contempt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Haltermon“attorney fees to an debtor injured by a contemptible violation of the discharge injunction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Haltermon“to view violations [of the discharge injunction] as a profit-making endeavor.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Haltermon
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.