No. 82-7043’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 state decisions

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

1. “[N]o hard-and-fast test may be applied in every case. There are, however, a number of factors which we think might properly be considered by a bankruptcy court addressing a motion to reject; ‡ sH sfc First, of course, is the possibility of liquidation, both with and without the rejection, and the impact of liquidation on each of the parties involved.... In calculating the probability of liquidation after the rejection of a collective bargaining agreement, the bankruptcy court should bear in mind that a debtor-in-possession, even after rejection, is compelled to bargain with an established bargaining unit in an attempt to execute a new collective bargaining agreement; therefore, the impact of a potential strike on the debtor need also enter into the court’s calculus. Second, (and closely related to the first), a court should consider the claims that will result from the rejection of a collective bargaining agreement, both in terms of the adequacy of relief for the employees and other claimants, and the impact of these claims on the debtor. This factor is especially important since many of the benefits received by employees under collective bargaining agreements are nonmonetary and generally incapable of providing a basis for a damage award. [[Image here]] Third, the cost-spreading abilities of the parties must be considered in a resolution based on the equities.... The consideration of this factor seems especially appropriate since it was the discrepancy in economic power betw”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re the Rath Packing Co.

2. ““The Bankruptcy Code furnishes no express definition of an executory contract, see 11 U.S.C. § 365 (a) (1982 ed), but the legislative history of § 365(a) indicates that Congress intended the term to mean a contract ‘on which performance remains due to some extent on both sides.’ ... We reject the argument of amicus United Mine Workers of America that a collective-bargaining agreement is not an executory contract within the meaning of § 365(a). Under their labor contract both Bildisco and the Union had reciprocal obligations, and at any point during the life of the contract, performance was due by both parties.” (Emphasis added).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Evans Products Co.

3. “imposes an excessive burden on the debtor-in-possession, one that subordinates the myriad of diverse interests at stake to a single issue: the ability of the debtor-in-possession to show by a preponderance of the evidence that forced liquidation is a certainty absent a rejection of the collective bargaining agreement ... To elevate this single consideration to such a dominant and decisive position allows the issue of rejection to be settled without any consideration of the interests of other parties involved, a total abdication of the policies behind the bankruptcy laws.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Briggs Transportation Co.