In re Chrysler LLC’s Empirical Analysis
576 F.3d 108 · 2009
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 11 U.S.C. § 1141 · 11 U.S.C. § 363 · 11 U.S.C. § 524 · 12 U.S.C. § 5201 (§ 2 of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008) · 12 U.S.C. § 5211 (§ 101 of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008) · 12 U.S.C. § 5229 (§ 119 of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008) · 28 U.S.C. § 158
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · General Electric Co. v. Joiner · Whitmore v. Arkansas · Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A § 363 sale can often yield the highest price for the assets because the buyer can select the liabilities it will assume and purchase a business with cash flow (or the near prospect of it).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[t]he possibility of transferring assets free and clear of existing tort liability was a critical inducement to the Sale.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“We agree with TWA and Leckie that the term “any interest in property” encompasses those claims that “arise from the property being sold.” See TWA 322 F.3d at 290 . By analogy to Leckie (in which the relevant business was coal mining), “[appellants’] rights are grounded, at least in part, in the fact that [Old Chrysler’s] very assets have been employed for [automobile production] purposes: if Appellees had never elected to put their assets to use in the [automobile] industry, and had taken up business in an altogether different area, [appellants] would have no right to seek [damages].” Leckie, 99 F.3d at 582 .”
2 later decisions 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.