Turner v. Ermiger’s Empirical Analysis
724 F.2d 338 · 1983
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 139 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2018 · most notably Celotex Corporation v. Edwards (1995), Michigan Employment Security Commission v. Wolverine Radio Co. (1991)
25 federal appellate · 7 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
Relies on Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Salomon v. Kaiser (In re Kaiser) · Turner v. Erminger (In Re Turner)
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 139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Notwithstanding any Act of Congress that confers exclusive jurisdiction on a court or courts other than the district courts, the district courts shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of all civil proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is no suggestion that the proceeds would be turned over to the trustee, or accounted for to [trustee], and the judgment below orders [landlord] to pay damages directly to [debtor]. Failure to recover on the claim could not increase [debtor’s] exemption claim under § 522(d) of the Code since [debtor’s] exemptions had already exhausted the estate. On these facts, there is no showing that [debtor’s] action against [landlord] had any ‘significant connection’ with [debtor’s] bankruptcy case. It therefore falls outside the scope of § 1471(b), 23 which allows the district courts to conduct civil proceedings ‘related to’ cases under Title 11.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Situations will undoubtedly arise in which the controversy is so tangential to the title 11 case that a court will hold that the case neither arises in nor is related to the title 11 case. In such cases, the bankruptcy court may decide that the exiguous nature of the relationship between the proceeding and the bankruptcy case is such as to fall without the court’s jurisdiction. The criterion to be adopted in such a situation will undoubtedly be related to a determination of whether the outcome of the proceeding could conceivably have any effect upon the estate being administered.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.