Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 590 F.3d 730 - Harris v. Wittman

Harris v. Wittman’s Empirical Analysis

590 F.3d 730 · 2009

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
November 2018
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Appellate journey

Relationships

Applies 11 U.S.C. § 363 · 11 U.S.C. § 704 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 157

Relies on Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Thomas v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co. · Knievel v. ESPN · Arnold Print Works, Inc. v. Apkin · In Re Castlerock Properties, Debtor. Piombo Corporation, a California Corporation v. Castlerock Properties, a California Limited Partnership

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

  1. “[A]bsent leave of the appointing court, the Barton doctrine denies subject matter jurisdiction to all forums except the appointing court. The Barton doctrine is a practical tool to ensure that all lawsuits that could affect the administration of the bankruptcy estate proceed either in the bankruptcy court, or with the knowledge and approval of the bankruptcy court. The Barton doctrine is not a tool to punish the unwary by denying any forum to hear a claim when leave of the bankruptcy court is not sought. When Harris’s case was removed to the appointing bankruptcy court, all problems under the Barton doctrine vanished.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[b]ankruptcy trustees are entitled to broad immunity from suit when acting within the scope of their authority and pursuant to court order.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “Harris’s claim does not just “relate” to the administration of the estate, his suit necessarily involves how the bankruptcy estate was administered. This is not like the pre-petition contract suits in Castlerock and Marathon that only arguably related to the administration of the estate because one of the parties to the contract was in bankruptcy. Harris’s breach of contract claim arose from the administration of his bankruptcy estate. Castlerock, like Marathon, involved breach of contract claims that arose before and independent of the administration of bankruptcy assets.”
    1 later decision 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.