Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 65 FAPPX 549 - Lim v. Greenfield

Lim v. Greenfield’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
August 2014
most recently cited

Relationships

Applies 11 U.S.C. § 363 · 11 U.S.C. § 522 · 11 U.S.C. § 546 · 11 U.S.C. § 548

Relies on Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz · Reid v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. · In Re: Daniel Fordu, Debtor. Harold A. Corzin v. Julie A. Fordu · Rogers v. Laurain · Levine v. Weissing

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

  1. ““In this case, the debtor did not claim an exemption for the entire property under § 522(b)(2)(B) (applicable to entireties property). Instead, he claimed an exemption under § 522(d)(1), which is limited to a dollar value of $16,150. Thus, even accepting defendants’ argument, the bankruptcy court would have retained jurisdiction over the property because the debtor did not exempt the entire property. See In re Bregni, [ 215 B.R. 850, 852 (Bankr.E.D.Mich.1997)] (debtor’s property remains property of the estate to the extent its value exceeds the statutory amount which the debtor is permitted to exempt). If the transfer is voided, [the debtor] will still receive his $16,150 exemption, but the property will no longer be held under a tenancy by the entireties. Thus, the entire property (minus the exemption) can be used to satisfy the debts of the [the debtor’s] creditors.””
    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.