Comer Moxley v. E Comer E’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 14 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably Amatex Corporation Amatex Corporation 83-1843 Amatex Corporation Robinson 83-1868, Riggsby Suburban Bank of Cary Grove v. W Riggsby
3 federal appellate · 14 district ·
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. § 1107 · 11 U.S.C. § 362 · 11 U.S.C. § 544
Relies on Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn · Universal Minerals, Inc. v. C. A. Hughes & Co. · Radio Station WOW, Inc. v. Johnson · Di Pierro v. Taddeo
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[tjhere appears to be little dispute be-' tween the parties that the applicable law on the substantive issue of allocation was stated by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in Page v. Wilson, 150 Pa.Super. 427, 433 , 28 A.2d 706, 709 (1942), and later quoted with approval by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in In re Woods’ Estate, 350 Pa. 290, 294 , 38 A.2d 28, 30 (1940). The rule is stated as: “The debtor has the right to make the application in the first instance, and failing to exercise it, the same right devolves upon the creditor. When no application is made by either party, the law determines how the payments are to be applied in accordance with equitable rules and principles.... [i]t will apply the payment, when not appropriated by either party, in the way most beneficial to the creditor, that is, to the debt lease secured, unless to the prejudice of a surety.” See also Toll-Barkan Co. v. Toll, 193 Pa.Super. 221, 225 , 164 A.2d 36, 38 (1960); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS §§ 258, 259, 260 (1982) [cited hereafter as “Restatement”]. Accord, e.g., Pristas v. Landaus of Plymouth, Inc., 742 F.2d 797, 801 (3d Cir., 1984); DuBois Nat’l Bank v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 161 F.2d 132, 137 (3d Cir.1947); Delaware Dredging Co. v. Tucker Stevedoring Co., 25 F.2d 44, 46 (3d Cir.1928); In re Penn Jersey Corp., 72 B.R. 981, 983 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1987); Washington Natural Gas Co. v. Johnson, 123 Pa. 576, 593 , 16 A. 799, 801-02 (1889); Harker v. Conrad, 12 Serg. & Rawle 301, 305”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“final in the sense that it completes litigation of the question[,] ... [n]othing more need be done by the district court or the bankruptcy court on the matter ... and the order of the district court ends this particular controversy between the debtors and creditors.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[c]onsiderations unique to bankruptcy appeals have, in the past,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Amatex Corporation, Formerly Known as American Asbestos Textile Corporation. Appeal of Amatex Corporation, Debtor-In-Possession, in 83-1843. In Re Amatex Corporation, Formerly Known as American Asbestos Textile Corporation. Appeal of Peter John Robinson, Proposed Intervenor, in 83-1868 · Amatex Corporation Amatex Corporation 83-1843 Amatex Corporation Robinson 83-1868
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.