15375 Memorial Corp. v. BEPCO, L.P.’s Empirical Analysis
589 F.3d 605 · 2009
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably In re South Beach Securities, Inc. (2010), In re Colbran, LLC (2012)
2 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 1112 · 28 U.S.C. § 158
Relies on Toibb v. Radloff · Universal Minerals, Inc. v. C. A. Hughes & Co. · Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, v. 203 North Lasalle Street Partnership · Little Creek Development Co. v. Commonwealth Mortgage Corp. · Rode v. Dellarciprete
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In sum, after the Debtors filed for bankruptcy, the Tebow Plaintiffs dismissed Santa Fe from the Tebow Action and settled with BEPCO. As part of that settlement, BEPCO was assigned the Tebow Plaintiffs’ claims for property damage. BEPCO asserted those claims against Santa Fe, Santa Fe’s insurers, Memorial, and the GSF Entities in Louisiana state court. The Bankruptcy Court granted BEPCO relief from the automatic stay for the claims against Santa Fe and its insurers, but it did not permit BEPCO to proceed with its alter ego claims against Memorial and the GSF Entities.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The term “good faith” is somewhat misleading. Though it suggests that the debtor’s subjective intent is determinative, this is not the case. Instead, the “good faith” filing requirement encompasses several, distinct equitable limitations that courts have placed on Chapter 11 filings. Courts have implied such limitations to deter filings that seek to achieve objectives outside the legitimate scope of the bankruptcy laws.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The protection of the automatic stay, however, is not per se a valid justification for a Chapter 11 filing; rather it is a consequential benefit of an otherwise good faith filing. As such, courts universally demand more of Chapter 11 petitions than a naked desire to stay pending litigation, and any perceived benefit of the automatic stay, without more, cannot convert a bad faith filing to a good faith one.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.