In the Matter of Frank E. KNIGHT, Debtor-Appellant’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably In Re: James Slack (1999), B-Real, LLC v. Chaussee (In Re Chaussee) (2008)
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
Relies on In the Matter of Robert John Love, Debtor-Appellant · In Re Energy Cooperative, Inc., Debtor. Energy Cooperative, Inc., Jay A. Steinberg, Trustee v. Socap International, Ltd. · Fostvedt v. Dow · Rosteck Old Willow Falls Condominium Association · In Re Lambert
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e hold that the fact that a claim is disputed does not per se exclude the claim from the eligibility calculation under § 109(e), since a disputed claim is not necessarily unliquidated. So long as a debt is subject to ready determination and precision in computation of the amount due, then it is considered liquidated and included for eligibility purposes under § 109(e), regardless of any dispute. On the other hand, if the dispute itself makes the claim difficult to ascertain or prevents the ready determination of the amount due, the debt is unliquidated and excluded from the § 109(e) computation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Salazar · Matter of Redburn“[A] creditor has a `claim' against the debtor; the debtor owes a `debt' to the creditor.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Arcella-Coffman · Glance v. S“The fact that Mr. Knight contests this claim does not remove it as a claim under § 109(e) or render it unliquidated. In re Jordan, 166 B.R. 201, 202 (Bankr.D.Me.1994) (“[T]he vast majority of courts have held that the existence of a dispute over either the underlying liability or the amount of a debt does not automatically render the debt either contingent or unliquidated.”). More fundamentally, the cases uniformly provide the method for determining whether a debt is liquidated: “If the amount of a claim has been ascertained or can readily be calculated, it is liquidated' — whether contested or not.” Norton, supro, § 18:12 at 18-48. See In re Fostvedt, 823 F.2d 305 , 306 (9th Cir.1987) (“[T]he question whether a debt is liqui dated turns on whether it is subject to ‘ready determination and precision in computation of the amount due.’ ”) (citations omitted).4”
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.