Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 574 F.3d 248 - Sheehan v. Peveich

Sheehan v. Peveich’s Empirical Analysis

574 F.3d 248 · 2009

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
June 2017
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 district ·

Relationships

Applies 11 U.S.C. § 522 · 11 U.S.C. § 541 · 28 U.S.C. § 158

Relies on Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier · Rhodes v. Stewart · Cox v. Shalala · Kanter v. Moneymaker · In Re Cross

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

  1. ““There can be no preemption ... where Congress ‘expressly and concurrently authorizes’ state legislation on the subject.” Rhodes v. Stewart, 705 F.2d 159, 163 (6th Cir.1983). “In such instance, rather than preempting the area, Congress expressly authorizes the states to ‘preempt’ the federal legislation.” Id.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he Bankruptcy Code provides two alternative exemption schemes. Unless state law provides otherwise, a debtor may choose to exempt from the estate either property listed in the federal bankruptcy exemptions set forth in § 522(d) of the Bankruptcy Code or property exempt under applicable state or local law, together with property exempt under federal, non-bankruptcy law. 11 U.S.C. § 522 (b)(1). However, § 522(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code authorizes the states to opt out of the federal bankruptcy exemption scheme and thereby deny debtors the right to elect the federal bankruptcy exemptions contained in § 522(d). By opting out, a state restricts its debtors to any exemptions available under state or local law and federal, non-bankruptcy law.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[sjimply because the exemptions differ from the federal exemptions (or from its non-bankruptcy counterpart), does not mean that such differences create a conflict that impedes the accomplishment and execution of the Bankruptcy Code”); In re Brown, No. 06-30199, 2007 WL 2120380 , at (Bankr.N.D.N.Y. July 23, 2007) (concluding that New York’s bankruptcy only exemption”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.