Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 673 F.2d 1250 - Barnette v. Evans

Barnette v. Evans’s Empirical Analysis

673 F.2d 1250 · 1982

Citation profile

104
cited by 104 later decisions
10
states following
April 2015
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 4 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably Robert Gruntz Robert Gruntz v. Opinion County of Los Angeles (2000), National Labor Relations Board v. Superior Forwarding, Inc. (1985)

8 federal appellate · 4 district · 12 state decisions — followed in 10 states

6001982199020002010decided

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. § 105 · 11 U.S.C. § 523 · 28 U.S.C. § 2283

Relies on Younger v. Harris · Bonner v. City of Prichard · San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez · United States v. Carson · Tolbert v. State

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

  1. “The purpose of bankruptcy is to protect those in financial, not moral, difficulty. The bankruptcy courts were not created as a haven for criminals.”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[I]f we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some eggs.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[s]ome district courts have interfered with state criminal proceedings only where subversion of the criminal process to collect debt was found. [Citing Penny, Reid [v. Young, 9 B.R. 830 (Bkrtcy.M.D.Ala.1981)], Lake and Caldwell.] If Barnette believed the prosecution for theft was a subterfuge for collection of a debt, he could have raised the issue as a defense in the state criminal proceeding. [Citation omitted.] ... In any event, there was no finding of abuse of the criminal process made in the instant case. The bankruptcy judge’s concern was that ‘[t]he necessary effect of conviction then, is to collect a debt dischargeable in bankruptcy.’”
    2 later decisions 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.