Health Maintenance Foundation Lines v. System Board of Adjustment No Brotherhood of Railway Airline & Steamship Clerks’s Empirical Analysis
680 F.2d 619 · 1982
Citation profile
13 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently July 2011 · most notably Cochise College Park Inc Hall v. Perry B-72-393 Phx Wpc (1983), Trustees of Amalgamated Insurance Fund v. McFarlin's, Inc. (1986)
13 federal appellate ·
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 Cramer v. Mammoth Mart, Inc. · In re Public Ledger, Inc. · Straus-Duparquet, Inc. v. Local Union No. 3 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he debts to have priority, in advance of the payment of dividends to creditors, and to be paid in full out of bankrupt estates, and the order of payment, shall be (1) the costs and expenses of administration, including the actual and necessary costs and expenses of preserving the estate subsequent to filing the petition”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) pay at termination in lieu of notice; and, (2) pay at termination based on length of employment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] creditor’s right to payment will be afforded first priority [administrative expense] only to the extent that the consideration supporting the claimant’s right to payment was both supplied to and beneficial to the ... [trustee] in the operation of the business.... Because the amount of the severance pay claims depends upon the length of employment, the consideration supporting . .. [the employees’] claims was the services performed for ... [debtor] over the entire period of ... employment. Since no part of their present claims arise [sic] from services performed for the ... [trustee], no portion of appellant’s claims may receive § 64(a)(1) priority.”
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.