Pacor Inc. v. Higgins’s Empirical Analysis
743 F.2d 984 · 1984
Citation profile
187 federal appellate · 93 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,317 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Celotex Corporation v. Edwards (1995), Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca (1995)
187 federal appellate · 93 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1293 · 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1446 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447 · 28 U.S.C. § 1452
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord
Cited together with Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Celotex Corporation v. Edwards · Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca · Matter of Wood v. P Wood & Pa · Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg
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 1,317 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the outcome of that proceeding could conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy.”
292 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“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.”
48 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... At best, it is a mere precursor to the potential third party claim for indemnification by Pacor against Manville. Yet the outcome of the Higgins-Pacor action would in no way bind Manville, in that it could not determine any rights, liabilities, or course of action of the debtor. Since Man-ville is not a party to the Higgins-Pacor action, it could not be bound by res judica-ta or collateral estoppel, (cites omitted) Even if the Higgins-Pacor dispute is resolved in favor of Higgins (thereby keeping open the possibility of a third party claim), Manville would still be able to relitigate any issue, or adopt any position, in response to a subsequent claim by Pacor. Thus, the bankruptcy estate could not be affected in any way until the Pacor-Man-ville third party action is actually brought and tried.”
19 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.