Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 757 P2D 820 - In Re Siegmann

In Re Siegmann’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
states following
April 2000
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently April 2000

4 state decisions

80198819902000decided

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. § 522

Relies on 12 Tex. Civ. App. 219 - Betz v. Maier · MacDonald v. Mercill · Reeves & Co. v. Bascue · Finerty v. First Nat. Bank of Duncan · Phelan v. Lacey

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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““We now hold that the tools of the trade exemption under 31 O.S.Supp.1987 § 1(A)(6) applies to any property which comes within the scope of the terms tools, apparatus or books, is used in the trade or professional of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor, and is reasonably necessary, convenient or suitable for production of work in that trade or profession regardless of size, source of power, mobility or mode of operation.” Id. at 824.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The intent and purpose of the statute in question is apparent on its face. The statute reflects an intent to insure that the items necessary to allow a person to continue to work to support himself are secured to that person exempt from seizure and sale. The statute reflects no limitation in terms of type of equipment, size, source of power, mobility or mode of operation in regard to the tools or apparatus which would come within the coverage of this limitation.” Id. at 822 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The Court, in Siegmann , further held: that the 5,000 dollar limitation on the value of exempt property provided in 31 O.S.Supp.1987 § 1(C) applies to the total value of all such property claimed under subsection 1(a)(6) so that, to the extent the combined value thereof exceeds 5,000 dollars the lien of the creditor continues to be effective.”
    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.