In Re Root’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably In Re Clarke (1987), Price v. United States (In Re Price) (1991)
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. § 1302 · 11 U.S.C. § 1306 · 11 U.S.C. § 362 · 11 U.S.C. § 704
Relies on In Re Adams · Mason v. Williams (In Re Mason) · Mason v. Williams (In Re Mason) · In Re Stark
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... make a final report and file a final account of the administration of the estate with the court.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“After confirmation of a Chapter 13 Plan, all "property of the estate" is vested in the debtor, unless otherwise provided for in the Plan. "Any property which has not been designated in the plan or order of confirmation as necessary for the execution of the plan revests in the debtor ..." and is thus no longer "property of the estate". In re Adams, 12 B.R. 540 (Bankr. Utah 1981). Any property that has been designated in the plan or order of confirmation as necessary for the execution of the plan, e.g. post-petition wages up to the amount of the plan payments each month, remain "property of the estate."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Petruccelli · In re Gonzales“There was no evidence that the IRS was specifically seeking to levy on that portion of the property and earnings which remained “property of the estate” post-confirmation. Had that evidence been forthcoming, the IRS would have been in violation of § 362. If the IRS was seeking to levy only upon property of the Debtor which did not constitute “property of the estate”, such action would not have been in violation of § 362.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Petruccelli
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.