In Re Sanders’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently August 2016
1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
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. § 522 · 15 U.S.C. § 1601 (§ 102 of the Truth in Lending Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1673 · 15 U.S.C. § 1677 · 26 U.S.C. § 401 (Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act of 1962) · 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 157 · 45 U.S.C. § 231 (Railroad Retirement Act of 1974)
Relies on Kokoszka v. Belford · Usery v. First National Bank of Arizona · In the Matter of Edward G Brissette Gene Paul Master Michael Anthony Simons · Dunlop v. First National Bank of Arizona · In Re Stewart
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Every person by or against whom an order is sought for relief under Title 11, United States Code, shall be permitted to exempt from property of the estate any property that is exempt from attachment and execution under the law of the state of Missouri or under federal law, other than Title 11, United States Code, Section 522 (d), and no such person is authorized to claim as exempt the property that is specified under Title 11, United States Code, Section 522 (d).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Arnold · In Re Barnes“The maximum part of the aggregate earnings of any individual for any workweek, after the deduction from those earnings of any amounts required by law to be withheld, which is subjected to garnishment may not exceed (a) twenty-five percentum, or (b) the amount by which his aggregate earnings for that week, ..., exceed thirty times the federal minimum hourly wage ..., or, (c) if the employee is the head of a family ..., ten percentum, whichever is less ... (emphasis added). The term “earnings” as used herein means compensation paid or payable for personal services, whether denominated as wages, salary, commission, bonus, or otherwise, and includes periodic payments pursuant to a pension or retirement program.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Mahoney“The following property shall be exempt from attachment and execution to the extent of any person’s interest therein: [[Image here]] (10) Such person’s right to receive: [[Image here]] (e) A payment under a stock bonus, pension, profit-sharing, annuity or similar plan or contract on account of illness, disability, death, age or length of service, to the extent reasonably necessary for the support of such person and any dependent of such person ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Smith
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.