Rhodes v. Stewart’s Empirical Analysis
705 F.2d 159 · 1983
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 116 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably Salomon v. Kaiser (In re Kaiser) (1983), Hall v. Finance One of Georgia Inc. (1985)
24 federal appellate · 6 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. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 11 U.S.C. § 522 · 11 U.S.C. § 552 · 28 U.S.C. § 1293
Relies on Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Perez. v. Campbell · United States v. Security Industrial Bank · Hanover National Bank v. Moyses · Sturges v. Crowninshield
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 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is ... axiomatic ... that Congress has not preempted an area wherein it has legislated when it expressly and concurrently authorizes the state legislatures to disregard or opt-out of such federal legislative area. In such instance, rather than preempting the area, Congress expressly authorizes the states to “preempt” the federal legislation. Congress did not intend to preempt bankruptcy exemptions through the promulgation of 11 U.S.C. § 522 (d) since it vested in the states the ultimate authority to determine their own bankruptcy exemptions.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Storer v. French · In Re Storer“Exemptions for the purpose of bankruptcy. — The personal property exemptions as provided for in this part, and the other exemptions as provided in other sections of the Tennessee Code Annotated for the citizens of Tennessee, are hereby declared adequate and the citizens of Tennessee, pursuant to section 522(b)(1), Public Law 95-598 known as the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, Title 11 USC, section 522 (b)(1), are not authorized to claim as exempt the property described in the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978,11 USC 522(d).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. In Re Daley · In re Wilson“(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 .... (emphasis added).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Storer v. French · In Re Rhoten
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.