National Hospital & Institutional Builders Co. v. Goldstein’s Empirical Analysis
658 F.2d 39 · 1981
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably In Re: First Central Financial Corporation (2004), In Re Harry Javens and Joyce Javens, Debtors. Harry Javens and Joyce Javens v. City of Hazel Park and City of Royal Oak (1997)
11 federal appellate · 1 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. § 362
Relies on Younger v. Harris · Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd. · Gibson v. Berryhill · Juidice v. Vail · Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp.
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions in every clause, sentence or paragraph, and in whatever maimer and against whomever an effort might be made to apply it’; that the state forum is biased; that the City acted in wilful disregard of the law; that City officials clearly abused their discretion in initiating proceedings against the trustee; or that the ‘state proceeding (was) motivated by a desire to harass.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In my view the Bankruptcy Court lacks jurisdiction to interfere with the state’s enforcement of its regulatory powers. [Tjhose state police powers rest within the exclusive jurisdiction of the state’s administrative apparatus.... A federal bankruptcy court is not a super-City Planning Commission or Board of Standards and Appeals.... [I]f the Bankruptcy Court can prevent a state regulatory agency from taking action that might lessen the value of the estate, nothing would prevent it from enjoining the state from invoking other state laws that might affect the bankrupt, such as those calling for revocation of a license for cause or lapse, prohibiting the erection of advertising signs, prescribing fire control or safety regulations, authorizing criminal proceedings, or the like.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n my view the Bankruptcy Court lacks jurisdiction to interfere with the state’s enforcement of its regulatory powers, (citations omitted). Absent some claim of denial of the debtor’s constitutional rights and none is asserted here those state police powers rest within the exclusive jurisdiction of the state’s administrative apparatus, with the debtor having the same right as any other citizen to obtain state judicial review. A federal bankruptcy court is not a super-City Planning Commission or Board of Standards and Appeals.”
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.