First National Bank of Mobile v. Norris’s Empirical Analysis
701 F.2d 902 · 1983
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably Dominion Bank v. Nuckolls (1985), 27 536 74764 Hunter Shipshewana State Bank
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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. § 323 · 11 U.S.C. § 522 · 11 U.S.C. § 544 · 11 U.S.C. § 704
Relies on United States v. Security Industrial Bank · Hackett v. Commercial Banking Corp. (In Re Hackett) · In Re Brooks · In Re Browning
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Notwithstanding section 541 of this title, an individual debtor may exempt from property of the estate either — (1) property that is specified under subsection (d) of this section, unless the State law that is applicable to the debtor under paragraph 2(A) of this subsection specifically does not so authorize; or, in the alternative, (2)(A) any property that is exempt under Federal law, other than subsection (d) of this section, or State or local law that is applicable on the date of the filing of the petition at the place in which the debtor's domicile has been located for the 180 days immediately preceding the date of the filing of the petition, or for a longer portion of such 180-day period than in any other place.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Rester · In Re Betz“In objecting to the claimed exemptions ... the trustee was not using the avoidance powers of section 544, but was acting as the 'representative of the estate’ under ... § 323, with the capacity to sue and be sued.”) (footnote omitted). By analogy, however, the existence of § 544 undercuts the debtors' argument that the unsecured creditors should be treated as though they could never obtain a judicial lien due to the filing of a bankruptcy petition. 7 . I note that the House debate contains the following statement by Representative Farr:”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Duda · Edmonston v. Murphy“[ i]n objecting to the claimed exemptions, however, the trustee was not using the avoidance powers of section 544, but was acting a the “representative of the estate” under § 323, with the capacity to sue and be sued. As the representative of the estate, trustee had a definite property interest in whether property of the debtor’s estate was allowed as exempt property. The trustee had a duty to collect the property of the estate. 11 U.S.C. § 704 . That duty inevitably involved determining what property was exempt.”
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.