Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 67 BR 825 - In Re Manuel

In Re Manuel’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
May 2019
most recently cited

2 district ·

Relationships

Applies 11 U.S.C. § 341 · 11 U.S.C. § 523

Relies on DeLesk v. Rhodes (In Re Rhodes) · Davis v. Herring · Edwards v. Whitfield (In Re Whitfield) · Marathon Restaurant Corp. v. Three Bros. Development & Construction Co. (In Re Barr) · In Re Klein

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

  1. “The chief function of meetings of creditors is to provide a method for the creditors to elect a trustee, examine the debtor, and be heard generally on questions concerning the handling of the estate. 2 Collier on Bankruptcy § 341.01. According to the legislative history, the examination of the debtor is intended to provide creditors with the opportunity to discover whether assets have been concealed, improperly disposed of, or if there are grounds for objections to discharge, (citation omitted) It is logical, then, that the filing period for dischargeability complaints would run from the date of the meeting of creditors, as long as the creditors had an opportunity to examine the debtor. When the debtor does not appear for examination on the date first set for the meeting, however, that date ceases to be a logical starting point for the filing of dischargeability complaints. Were the sixty-day period to begin on that date even if the debtor did not appear, it would force creditors to file complaints based upon speculation or to hold Rule 2004 examinations to obtain the information they needed. This would result in unnecessary examinations and complaints, much duplication of effort, and considerable expense. This Court sees such an interpretation of Rule 4007(c) to be inconsistent with the expedient handling of dis-chargeability complaints. Id., 48 B.R. at 718-719 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.