Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 8 B.R. 692 - In Re Button

In Re Button’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
October 2003
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2003 · most notably Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare v. Davenport (1990), In the Matter of James Michael Zarzynski and Kathryn Kleist Zarzynskis

5 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

460198119902000decided

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. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 11 U.S.C. § 523

Relies on 78 Misc. 2d 217 - People v. Mosesson · People v. Topping Bros. · In re Munford

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

  1. ““[I]t seems clear that the debt owed by the debtor to the creditor, Sheridan Oil Company, has been discharged because they did not file an objection to discharge under § 523 of the Bankruptcy Code. However, the criminal sentence of restitution as a condition of probation is an entirely different matter. This is part of the punishment for the crime to which the debtor pleaded guilty. The court cannot see in any section of the Bankruptcy Code an intention by the Federal Government to relieve debtors of criminal responsibilities. Therefore, since the criminal proceeding was a matter entirely within the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of New York, this Court does not believe that it has jurisdiction to interfere with the sentence of the State Court.””
    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.