Matthews v. Rosene’s Empirical Analysis
739 F.2d 249 · 1984
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 114 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Job v. Calder (1990), Easley v. Pettibone Michigan Corp. (1993)
17 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 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. § 362
Relies on In re Smith Corset Shops, Inc. · With v. Amador · Stuhley v. Hyatt
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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Section 362 is designed to benefit a debt- or by preventing harassment and frustration of rehabilitation efforts through pursuit by creditors in individual actions. Suspension of Section 362 automatic stay provisions may be consonant with the purposes of the Bankruptcy Act when equitable considerations weigh heavily in favor of the creditor and the debtor bears some responsibility for creating the problems.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“unreasonably and inexcusably delayed asserting his claim,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Although we need not decide if this factor alone would be enough to suspend the application of Section 362, our decision to allow equitable considerations to override the serious concerns of that section rests in large measure on the fact that Matthews initiated the state court proceedings. Matthews sought a judicial determination that he had an interest in the land sale contract. Rosene countered with his claim that Matthews had no interests. Matthews risked facing that claim. Once the [state] circuit court determined that Matthews had no interests, equity prevents him from seeking the protection of the bankruptcy laws to avoid the [state] circuit court order.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Raanan
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.