Shine v. Shine’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently January 2014 · most notably Holliday v. Kline (1995), Jones v. Jones (1993)
13 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 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. § 523
Relies on Pepper v. Litton · Gleason v. Thaw · Angrist v. United States · United States v. Brown · Wetmore v. Markoe
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in connection with a separation agreement [or] divorce decree,”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lawson v. G G G · In re Crosswhite“§ 523. Exceptions to Discharge (a) A discharge under 727 ... of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt - (5) to a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor, for alimony to, maintenance for, or support of such spouse or child, in connection with a separation agreement, divorce decree or other order of a court of record, determination made in accordance with state or territorial law by a governmental unit, or property settlement agreement but not to the extent that - (A) such debt is assigned to another entity, voluntarily, by operation of law, or otherwise; or (B) such debt includes a liability designated as alimony, maintenance, or support, unless such liability is actually in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The bankruptcy law should receive such an interpretation as will effectuate its beneficent purposes and not make it an instrument to deprive dependent wife and children of the support and maintenance due them from the husband and father, which it has ever been the purpose of the law to enforce.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. MacY v. MacY · In Re MacY
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.