Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 69 F.3d 608 - Summit Investment & Development Corp. v. Leroux

Summit Investment & Development Corp. v. Leroux’s Empirical Analysis

69 F.3d 608 · 1995

Citation profile

92
cited by 92 later decisions
5
states following
May 2018
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 22 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Cheryl Bessette for Herself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Avco Financial Services Inc (2000), Arnold v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (1998)

19 federal appellate · 22 district · 5 state decisions

390199520002010decided

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. § 365

Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Bildisco & Bildisco · Greenwood Trust Company v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Weston v. Rodriguez · Monarch Life Insurance v. Ropes & Gray · In Re David F. Laroche

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

  1. “(2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection does not apply to an executory contract or unexpired lease of the debtor, whether or not such contract or lease prohibits or restricts assignment of rights or delegation of duties, if— (A)(i) applicable law excuses a party, other than the debtor, to such contract or lease from accepting performance from or rendering performance to the trustee or to an assignee of such contract or lease, whether or not such contract or lease prohibits or restricts assignment of rights or delegation of duties; and (ii) such party does not consent to such assumption or assignment;”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(e)(1) Notwithstanding a provision in an executory contract.. .or in applicable law, an executory contract.. .of the debtor may not be terminated or modified, and any right or obligation under such contract.. .may not be terminated or modified, at any time after the commencement of the case solely because of a provision in such contract. . .that is conditioned on— (A) the insolvency or financial condition of the debtor at any time before the closing of the case; [or] (B) the commencement of a case under this title....”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “... The “plain meaning” of statutory language controls its construction. But the meaning, or “plainness,” of discrete statutory language is to be gleaned from the statute as a whole, including its overall policy and purpose. “Literal” interpretations which lead to absurd results are to be avoided. * * * * * * Plain statutory language does not prompt recourse to countervailing legislative history.”
    3 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.