Martin-Trigona v. Shiff’s Empirical Analysis
702 F.2d 380 · 1983
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Martin-Trigona v. Lavien (1984), St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. Pepsico, Inc., Pepsico, Inc., Third-Party v. Banner Industries, Inc., Third-Party (1989)
45 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 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. § 1101 · 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 151 (Bankruptcy Amendments) · 28 U.S.C. § 1826 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2256 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCann · North Carolina v. Rice · Sunal v. Large · Ciuzio v. United States
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The hallmark of a moot case or controversy is that the relief sought can no longer be given or is no longer needed.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“BACKGROUND Anthony Martin-Trigona is no stranger to the federal courts. His tour through the court system is marked by a persistent refusal to cooperate with court orders and purposeful efforts to delay and jaundice court proceedings. His distinctive brand of pro se advocacy has reached this Court after a barrage of procedural and jurisdictional challenges which have frustrated the courts below and have caused these bankruptcy proceedings to advance at a snail’s pace, with little progress made toward settling creditors’ claims during the past two and one-half years.i (See opinion for the Court’s relevant footnote). Martin-Trigona v. Shift, 702 F.2d 380 (2 Cir.1983).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There has been enough obstruction and delay in this matter. If the bankruptcy court cannot incarcerate for contempt, the district court can.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.