United Savings Ass'n of Texas v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis
793 F.2d 1380 · 1986
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably United Savings Ass'n v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd. (1987), T-H New Orleans Limited Partnership Financial Security Assurance Inc v. T-H New Orleans Limited Partnership (1997)
26 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 103 · 11 U.S.C. § 1111 · 11 U.S.C. § 361 · 11 U.S.C. § 502
Relies on Caminetti v. United States · Russello v. United States · United States v. Whiting Pools, Inc. · Watt v. Alaska · Midlantic National Bank v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) for cause, including the lack of adequate protection of an interest in property of such party in interest; or (2) with respect to a stay of an act against property under subsection (a) of this section, if— (A) the debtor does not have an equity in such property; and (B) such property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]o the extent that an allowed secured claim is secured by property the value of which ... is greater than the amount of such claim, there shall be allowed to the holder of such claim, interest on such claim.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In ... circumstances [where] the creditor’s security interest arises from a voluntarily executed agreement between the debtor and the creditor[,] [t]he two parties have bargained with reference to a specific security with the expectation that the creditor may sell this security and realize the entire amount of the outstanding obligation including interest accrued to the date of payment. To deny such a creditor postpe-tition interest, when the amount of the security is sufficient to cover both the principal and interest due, would undermine the faith of lenders in the efficacy of credit arrangements. Such a loss of confidence could result in a curtailing of the free flow of capital in our economy. Thus, granting postpetition interest to [secured lenders] ... satisfies the expectations of the parties and strikes an equitable balance between the creditors and debtors.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Foertsch · Matter of Bradley
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.