In Re Wildman’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 133 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably In re Busy Beaver Building Centers, Inc. (1994), Grant v. George Schumann Tire & Battery Co. (1990)
4 federal appellate · 1 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. § 1106 · 11 U.S.C. § 326 · 11 U.S.C. § 327 · 11 U.S.C. § 328 · 11 U.S.C. § 330 · 11 U.S.C. § 363 · 11 U.S.C. § 704
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. · Copeland v. Marshall · In re Nucorp Energy, Inc. · 561 F. Supp. 656 - Keene Corp. v. International Fidelity Insurance
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 133 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A person seeking interim or final compensation for services, or reimbursement of necessary expenses, from the estate shall file with the court an application setting forth a detailed statement of (1) the services rendered, time expended and expenses incurred, and (2) the amounts requested, (emphasis added). Bankr. Rule 2016.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“all continuous administrative or general costs or expenses incident to the operation of the firm which cannot be attributed to a particular client or case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Having found all services compensable, the next step is to determine whether or not those services were “actual and necessary.” It is in this area [objection to Chase fees] that the court encounters difficul-ty_ The debtor had actively questioned the need for such a challenge and refused to participate on its own behalf. While the court finds that there was some justification for Mr. Uziel’s labors, the court must seriously question the extent of these labors, particularly in view of the final benefit to the estate. Although the court found partially in favor of the Unsecured Creditors’ Claim against Chase, the court’s decision was not anywhere close to the position which had been taken by Mr. Uziel. In these circumstances, rather than awarding fees calculated on an hourly basis, the court finds that the more correct method for awarding fees would be on a contingent basis. A reasonable sum for the contingency fee would be % of the amount by which Chase’s attorneys' fees were ultimately reduced.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.