Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 556 F.3d 742 - Sofris v. Maple-Whitworth, Inc.

Sofris v. Maple-Whitworth, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

556 F.3d 742 · 2009

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
April 2019
most recently cited

2 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 11 U.S.C. § 303 · 28 U.S.C. § 158

Relies on Hanf v. Summers · Beam v. Internal Revenue Service · Higgins v. Vortex Fishing Systems, Inc. · Michael N. Sofris, APC v. Maple-Whitworth, Inc. (In Re Maple-Whitworth, Inc.)

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

  1. “to impose joint and several liability on all petitioners of the class is contrary to individualized exercise of discretion unambiguously authorized by the statute, and ignores the consideration of the totality of circumstances in imposing liability required by our precedent. In exercising its discretion whether to award fees and costs, the bankruptcy court may consider factors including the relative culpability among the petitioners, the motive or objectives of individual petitioners and joining in the involuntary petition, and the reasonableness of respective conduct of the debtors and petitions, as well as other individualized factors.... Tort concepts in class theories of liability are irrelevant to these considerations.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[A] bankruptcy court has discretion to hold all or some petitioners jointly or severally liable for costs and fees, to apportion liability according to petitioners' relative responsibility or culpability, or to deny an award against some or all petitioners, depending on the totality of the circumstances.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.