Parks v. Dittmar’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

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.

1. “Congress has generally left the determination of property rights in the assets of a bankrupt’s estate to state law. Property interests are created and defined by state law. Unless some federal interest requires a different result, there is no reason why such interests should be analyzed differently simply because an interested party is involved in a bankruptcy proceeding.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance (In re United Western Bancorp, Inc.)

2. “We have pointed out that the scope of § 541 is broad and should be generously construed, and that an interest may be property of the estate even if it is 'novel or contingent.' ”). ,See also Lunceford v. Lunceford, 139 P.3d 1073 (Ct. App. Utah 2006) (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Dodart

3. “mere expectancies,” rather than existing property interests. Most interests fall in between these two extremes, and often have a mix of characteristics that make it very difficult to ascertain whether the interest has crossed the line from”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. In re Powell