Baker v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis
604 F.3d 727 · 2010
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 522 · 11 U.S.C. § 541
Relies on Norton v. Sam's Club · Rousey v. Jacoway · Hamer v. . Sidway · Virgilio v. City of New York · Holt v. Feigenbaum
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“On appeal, the trustee maintains that Baker cannot rely on New York law to exempt the annuity at issue from the bankruptcy estate because he does not own it. The argument is flawed in conflating the annuity contract, which is owned by the insurance company, with the proceeds payable under that contract, which are due solely to Baker. New York law does not exempt only the annuity; it exempts the “proceeds and avails thereof,” N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law § 282 , specifically providing that “[t]he benefits, rights, [and] privileges” under the annuity contract are “not subject to execution,” N.Y. Ins. Law § 3212 (d)(1). These provisions are broad enough to allow Baker to exempt future annuity payments from the bankruptcy estate.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Morgan v. Gordon
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.