Charbono v. Sumski’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 4 district ·

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

1. “absence of bad faith does not serve to undermine”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pimentel-Soto v. v. · Madoff v. Amaral (In re Amaral)

2. “Not having received a copy of either the debtor’s tax return or an extension request, the Trustee filed a motion on June 13 alerting the bankruptcy court to the debtor's failure to comply with the tax return production requirement. The Trustee’s motion sought alternative relief: dismissal of the Chapter 13 bankruptcy or a $200 sanction. The debtor objected and belatedly furnished the Trustee with a copy of the by-then-approved extension request. When the matter was heard before the bankruptcy court on September 20, the Trustee did not press for dismissal. He argued instead that the debtor’s untimely compliance with the tax return production requirement was “sanctionable behavior.” The debtor countered that no sanction was warranted because he had by then "purged” his noncompliance. On September 24, the bankruptcy court entered an order imposing a $100 sanction on the debtor for his failure to comply with the tax return production requirement in a ti-meous manner. The debtor took a first-tier appeal to the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 158 (a), (c)(1), That court upheld the sanction. See Charbono v. Sumski, No. 13-471, 2014 WL 4922988 , at (D.N.H. Sept. 30, 2014). This timely second-tier appeal followed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Madoff v. Amaral (In re Amaral)

3. “The courts of appeals consistently have recognized that bankruptcy courts may impose various forms of inherent-power sanctions. See, e.g., Isaacson v. Manty, 721 F.3d 533, 538-39 (8th Cir. 2013); McGahren v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Co. (In re Weiss), 111 F.3d 1159, 1171 (4th Cir. 1997); Mapother & Mapother, P.S.C. v. Cooper (In re Downs), 103 F.3d 472, 477-78 (6th Cir. 1996); Caldwell v. Unified Capital Corp. (In re Rainbow Magazine, Inc.), 77 F.3d 278, 284 (9th Cir. 1996); Glatter v. Mroz (In re Mroz), 65 F.3d 1567, 1575 (11th Cir. 1995); Fellheimer, Eichen & Braverman, P.C. v. Charter Techs., Inc., 57 F.3d 1215, 1224 (3d Cir. 1995); Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Case (In re Case), 937 F.2d 1014, 1023 (5th Cir. 1991). Our court has joined in this chorus. See Pearson v. First NH Mortg. Corp., 200 F.3d 30 , 42 n. 7 (1st Cir. 1999). We therefore hold, without serious question, that bankruptcy courts possess the inherent power to impose punitive non-contempt sanctions for failures to comply with their orders.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Madoff v. Amaral (In re Amaral)