In the Matter of Edward G Brissette Gene Paul Master Michael Anthony Simons’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Bankr L Rep P 70653 in the Matter of Richard E Barker, Warren v. Taff (In Re Taff) (1981)
1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
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 Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Kokoszka v. Belford · Lines v. Frederick · Taylor v. Voss · Daniel Holden v. J a Stratton
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A decision that property is exempt may so deplete the potential estate that creditors will decline to participate further in the proceeding; a decision that it is not exempt will cause title to it to vest in the trustee during the pendency of the action, with all the attendant consequences of vesting. Although the exemption decision is technically interlocutory, it is frequently the final resolution of the rights of the parties for practical purposes. Erroneous determinations that property is nonexempt encourage creditors to press claims and to divide assets only to be told on appeal that there is nothing to divide. Of greater moment, however, the bankrupt may be thereby deprived of the necessities of life which Section 6 was designed to preserve to him during the pendency of the action. On the other hand, an erroneous decision of exemption will leave property in the hands of the bankrupt and subject to dissipation without the appropriate satisfaction of any creditor.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An examination of the legislative history of the [CCPA] makes it clear that, while it was enacted against the background of the Bankruptcy Act, it was not intended to alter the clear purpose of the latter Act to assemble, once a bankruptcy petition is filed, all of the debtor’s assets for the benefit of creditors.... In short, the [CCPA] sought to prevent consumers from entering bankruptcy in the first place. However, if, despite its protection, bankruptcy did occur, the debtor’s protection and remedy remained under the Bankruptcy Act.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(t)he distinction between 'proceedings' and 'controversies' in Section 24(a) is obscure and indefensibly confusing.”
2 later decisions 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.