Schlein v. Mills’s Empirical Analysis
8 F.3d 745 · 1993
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably Eavenson v. Ramey (1999), Dionne v. Harless (In Re Harless) (1995)
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 522 · 26 U.S.C. § 408 (§ 2002 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · Mullaney v. Wilbur · West v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. · MacKey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service, Inc. · Patterson v. Shumate
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Notwithstanding s. 222.20, an individual debtor under the federal Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 may exempt, in addition to any other exemptions allowed under state law, any property listed in subsection (d)(10) of s. 522 of that act.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“No writ of attachment or garnishment or other process shall issue from any of the courts of this state to attach or delay the payment of any money or other thing due to any person who is the head of a family residing in this state, when the money or other thing due is for the personal labor or services of such person.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. In Re Hanick · In Re Porter“The Bankruptcy Code was enacted as a comprehensive scheme to regulate debt- or-creditor relationships after the filing of a bankruptcy petition. As part of this scheme, responsibility for defining what property debtors will take out of bankruptcy is shared with the states. The district court’s preemption conclusion was based upon its reasoning that “state law exemptions are not necessary to the enforcement of the Bankruptcy Code,” which “can operate effectively without any state law.” Evidently Congress did not think so, because it included in the Bankruptcy Code the provision, 11 U.S.C. § 522 (b)(1), that gives states the authority to define exemptions .... [T]he language of the ERISA saving clause applies whenever preemption would alter or amend or modify any federal law. A holding that state exemption statutes like the one involved in this case, are preempted would alter, amend, or modify the Bankruptcy Code’s provision permitting states to set exemptions and the deliberate policy choices of Congress that underlie that provision. We do no believe that Congress intended that result.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.