Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 602 F.2d 38 - Minges Control Data Corporation v. Zelman

Minges Control Data Corporation v. Zelman’s Empirical Analysis

602 F.2d 38 · 1979

Citation profile

92
cited by 92 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
April 2017
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 4 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 92 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2017 · most notably National Labor Relations Board v. Bildisco & Bildisco (1984), Orion Pictures Corporation Orion Pictures Corporation v. Showtime Networks Inc (1993)

6 federal appellate · 4 district ·

58019791980199020002010decided

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

Relies on Butner v. United States · Group of Institutional Investors v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad · Baker v. Gold Seal Liquors, Inc. · Thaggard v. United States

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

  1. “[I]n bankruptcy proceedings, the trustee, and ultimately the court, must exercise their discretion fairly in the interest of all who have had the misfortune of dealing with the debtor. A rigid test, permitting rejection only where the exec-utory contract will cause a net loss to the debtor’s estate if performed, might work a substantial injustice in eases where it can be shown that the non-debtor contracting party will reap substantial benefits under the contract while the debtor’s creditors are forced to make substantial compromises of their claims.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[Wjithout explicitly using the “business judgment.” terminology a number of courts have employed the substance of that test in emphasizing potential greater profit for the debtor’s estate in deciding whether to permit rejection of a particular contract [citations omitted]. We believe that such a flexible test for determining whether an executory contract may be rejected, however termed (and “business judgment” is as good a label as any), is most appropriate. For in bankruptcy proceedings, the trustee, and ultimately the court, must exercise their discretion fairly in the interest of all who have had the misfortune of dealing with the debtor.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “In the instant case, the Debtors have not presented convincing evidence to this Court that rejecting [the Lease] will benefit the Debtors’ estate ... they utterly fail to address much less demonstrate to this Court how the estate would be benefitted through the rejection of [the Lease] or further, how such rejection, if allowed, would relieve the estate any burdens ... Thus, there is no credible justification for a finding that ‘there is a reasonable likelihood that general creditors will derive a substantial or significant benefit from the proposed lease rejection’.”
    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.