Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 656 F.2d 60 - Cheeseman v. Nachman

Cheeseman v. Nachman’s Empirical Analysis

656 F.2d 60 · 1981

Citation profile

96
cited by 96 later decisions
October 2014
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably Tignor v. Parkinson (1984), Rhodes v. Stewart (1983)

25 federal appellate · 2 district ·

6701981199020002010decided

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

Relies on Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington · International Shoe Co. v. Pinkus · Wilkinson v. Merrill · Richardson v. Woodward

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

  1. “Because Congress has the power under the Constitution to establish uniform bankruptcy laws, U.S. Const. Art. 1, § 8, and has enacted a specific provision for exemptions, 11 U.S.C. § 522 , we must adopt an interpretation of Virginia’s law that does not conflict with the Act’s exemption provision.”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. In Re Scott · In the Matter of Scott Reynolds Sullivan, Debtor-Appellant. United States of America, Intervening-Appellee. In Re Willis Wayne West, Debtor-Appellant. State of Illinois, Intervening-Appellee
  2. “[e]very householder or head of family residing in this State shall be entitled ... to hold exempt ... real and personal property, or either, to be selected by him, ... to the value of not exceeding $5,000.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. In Re Preston · Snow v. Green (In Re Snow)
  3. “... this section shall apply separately with respect to each debtor in a joint case.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Sigmon v. Brank · Matter of Pearl

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.