Peter W. Hebert, M.D. And Patricia A. Hebert v. J.F. Fliegel, Jr.’s Empirical Analysis
813 F.2d 999 · 1987
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently February 2014
1 federal appellate · 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. § 522
Relies on North Haven Board of Education v. Bell · McLinn F/v Fjord Johnson F/v Supersonic Churchill v. F/v Fjord F/v Supersonic F/v Supersonic · Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Perini North River Associates · Goff v. Taylor · Jackson Water Works, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission of State of California
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“are funded exclusively by the self-employed individual, who retains complete control over the amounts invested and the management of the funds. The individual also retains the right to terminate the plan and withdraw the funds at any time, subject only to a tax penalty.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“All pensions granted to any person in recognition by reason of a period of employment by or service for the government of the United States, or any state, or political subdivision of any state, or any municipality, person, partnership, association or corporation, shall be exempt from execution and all other process, mesne or final____”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It has thus been a well-established rule of law in Oregon for nearly ten years that ORS 23.170 requires the existence of separate and distinct employer and employee entities. This construction reasonably follows from the language of the statute, which refers to pensions “granted to” a person “in recognition ... of a period of employment by or service for” an employer. The ordinary meaning of that language suggests two separate entities.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.