Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 764 F.2d 655 - In re Nucorp Energy, Inc.

In re Nucorp Energy, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

764 F.2d 655 · 1985

Citation profile

221
cited by 221 later decisions
5
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

47 federal appellate · 8 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 221 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Huffman v. Commissioner (1992), Martin Martin

47 federal appellate · 8 district · 8 state decisions

9501985199020002010decided

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. § 329 · 11 U.S.C. § 330 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 3612 (§ 812 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968))

Relies on Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Maher v. Gagne · Zurcher v. Stanford Daily · Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp. · Constant v. United States

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

  1. “In determining the amount of reasonable compensation to be awarded, the court shall consider the nature, the extent, and the value of such services, taking into account all relevant factors, including— (A) the time spent on such services; (B) the rates charged for such services; (C) whether the services were necessary to the administration of, or beneficial at the time at which the service was rendered toward the completion of [the case]; (D) whether the services were performed within a reasonable amount of time commensurate with the complexity, importance, and nature of the problem, issue, or task addressed; and (E) whether the compensation is reasonable based on the customary compensation charged by comparably skilled practitioners in cases other than eases under this title.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(a) After notice to any parties in interest and to the United States trustee and a hearing, and subject to sections 326, 328, and 329 of this title, the court may award to a trustee, to an examiner, to a professional person employed under section 327 or 1103 of this title, or to the debtor’s attorney— (1) reasonable compensation for actual, necessary services rendered by such trustee, examiner, professional person, or attorney, as the case may be, and by any paraprofessional persons employed by such trustee, professional person, or attorney, as the case may be, based on the nature, the extent, and the value of such services, the time spent on such services, and the cost of comparable services other than in a case under this title; and (2) reimbursement for actual, necessary expenses.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[t]he preparation of complex and burdensome fee applications is statutorily required of all counsel who seek compensation for the representation of debtors in bankruptcy. Detailed billing information is of importance to all parties, as well as to the court. Thus, the work involved in complying with those requirements constitutes “actual and necessary” services.”
    2 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.