Sierra Switchboard Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
789 F.2d 705 · 1986
Citation profile
54 federal appellate · 9 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 217 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Vincent Cusano v. Gene Klein an Individual (2001), Cottrell v. Schilling (1989)
54 federal appellate · 9 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 12 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 11 U.S.C. § 110 · 11 U.S.C. § 522 · 11 U.S.C. § 541 · 11 U.S.C. § 554
Relies on United States v. Whiting Pools, Inc. · Pizza of Hawaii, Inc. v. Shakey's, Inc. · Fondiller v. Robertson · Tignor v. Parkinson
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 217 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kaye v. City of Los Angeles · In Re Charles George Milden, and Susan Patricia Milden, Debtors. (Two Cases) Charles G. Milden and Susan P. Milden, State of the Art, Inc., David S. Samuels, George Riviere, and David H. Hanna, Creditor-Appellees v. James J. Joseph, Chapter 7 Trustee, Robertson Stephens & Company, and Frank A. Barcott Security and Investigation, Real-Parties-In-Interest-Appellees. Charles G. Milden and Susan P. Milden, State of the Art, Inc., David S. Samuels, George Riviere, and David H. Hanna, Creditor-Appellees v. James J. Joseph, Trustee, Frank A. Barcott Security and Investigation, Real-Party-In-Interest-Appellee“(a) After notice and a hearing, the trustee may abandon any property of the estate that is burdensome to the estate or that is of inconsequential value and benefit to the estate. (b) On request of a party in interest and after notice and a hearing, the court may order the trustee to abandon any property of the estate that is burdensome to the estate or that is of inconsequential value and benefit to the estate. (c) Unless the court orders otherwise, any property scheduled under section 521(1) of this title not otherwise administered at the time of the closing of a case is abandoned to the debtor and administered for purposes of section 350 of this title. (d) Unless the court orders otherwise, property of the estate that is not abandoned under section (a) or (b) of this section and that is not administered in the case remains property of the estate.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Moore · In Re Wideman“(a) Notice of proposed abandonment or disposition; objections; hearing Unless otherwise directed by the court, the trustee or debtor in possession shall give notice of a proposed abandonment or disposition of property to the United States trustee, all creditors, indenture trustees, and committees elected pursuant to § 705 or appointed pursuant to § 1102 of the Code. A party in interest may file and serve an objection within 14 days of the mailing of the notice, or within the time fixed by the court. If a timely objection is made, the court shall set a hearing on notice to the United States trustee and to other entities as the court may direct. (b) Motion by party in interest A party in interest may file and serve a motion requiring the trustee or debtor in possession to abandon property of the estate.”
4 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.