Kinney Systems, Inc. v. Intermet Realty Partnership (In Re Convent Guardian Corp.)’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently February 2009
3 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 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 1412 · 28 U.S.C. § 1452
Relies on Philadelphia Gold Corp. v. Fauzio (In Re Philadelphia Gold Corp.) · General Instrument Corp. v. Financial & Business Services, Inc. (In Re Finley) · Seybolt v. Bio-Energy of Lincoln, Inc. · Stamm v. Rapco Foam, Inc. · BancOhio National Bank v. Long (In Re Long)
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“All of the known authorities hold that, where a bankruptcy court is simultaneously confronted with (1) a Motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1412 , to transfer or change the venue of an action which has been removed to it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452 (a); and (2) a Motion to remand or otherwise abstain from hearing the change of venue action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 (c), the action should be transferred to the “home” court of the bankruptcy to decide the issue of whether to remand or abstain from hearing the action.”
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.