In re Ludkowski’s Empirical Analysis
2018
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 11 U.S.C. § 1107 · 11 U.S.C. § 1306 · 11 U.S.C. § 327 · 11 U.S.C. § 329 · 11 U.S.C. § 330 · 11 U.S.C. § 348 · 11 U.S.C. § 362
Relies on United States v. Whiting Pools, Inc. · Turner v. Rogers · Stern v. Marshall · Stern v. Marshall · Hennessy v. Penril Datacomm Networks, 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court, and any final order or judgment shall be entered by the district judge after considering the bankruptcy judge's proposed findings and conclusions and after reviewing de novo those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the commencement or continuation ... of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor ... or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“of all cases under title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. § 101 , et seq. (the”
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.