Emann v. Latture’s Empirical Analysis
605 F.3d 830 · 2010
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 411 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 18 U.S.C. § 3732 · 21 U.S.C. § 2107 · 28 U.S.C. § 157 · 28 U.S.C. § 158 · 28 U.S.C. § 2107
Relies on Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · Bowles v. Russell · Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. · Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress did explicitly include a timeliness condition in 28 U.S.C. § 158 (c)(2)— the requirement that a notice of appeal be filed within the time provided by Rule 8002(a). Furthermore, the timeliness requirement contained in Section 158(c)(2) is located in the same section granting the district courts and bankruptcy appellate courts jurisdiction to hear appeals from bankruptcy courts— Section 158(a)-(b). .... It is true that bankruptcy rules alone cannot create or withdraw jurisdiction. Here, however, it is Section 158(c)(2) that is determining jurisdiction by incorporating the time limits prescribed in Rule 8002(a).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Here, however, it is Section 158(c)(2) that is determining jurisdiction by incorporating the time limits prescribed in Rule 8002(a). Indeed, the Court in Bowles went so far as to say that “Congress may authorize courts to promulgate rules that excuse compliance with the statutory time limits.” Authorizing courts to make exceptions to jurisdictional time limits is effectively the same as authorizing courts to set the time limit in the first instance. For this reason, Rule 9030 does not alter our conclusion that Rule 8002(a) warrants jurisdictional treatment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Gartley“[A]bsent controlling precedent indicating that the statute must specifically set the time parameters, this [c]ourt will continue to treat the timely filing of a notice of appeal pursuant to [ 28 U.S.C.] § 158(c)(2) and Rule 8002 to be a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be waived.”
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.