Neeley v. Murchison’s Empirical Analysis
815 F.2d 345 · 1987
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 150 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably Kontrick v. Ryan (2004), In re Szostek (1989)
28 federal appellate · 7 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 · 28 U.S.C. § 158
Relies on DeLesk v. Rhodes (In Re Rhodes) · In Re Figueroa · Francis v. Riso (In Re Riso) · Herbert v. Schwartz (In Re Schwartz)
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 150 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Section] 523(c) of the Code, which Rule 4007 is designed to implement, places a heavy burden on the creditor to protect his rights: a debt of the type presented here is automatically discharged unless the creditor requests a determination of dischargeability. The one narrow exception to this rule incorporates a duty-to-inquire approach to notice issues. Under § 523(a)(3)(B), a debt is not automatically discharged if the debt- or fails to schedule the creditor and the creditor had no notice or actual knowledge of the case in time to file a claim and a request for determination of dis-chargeability. Thus, in cases such as this one, it would be inconsistent with the scheme of § 523 to require technical compliance with the notice provision of Rule 4007: this would place the creditor who has written notice of the bankruptcy (albeit deficient notice under the Rule) in a better position than the unlisted creditor whose debt is discharged under § 523(c) if he merely learns of the bankruptcy proceedings in time to protect his rights. Section 523(c) provides:”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“3. Enlargement Limited. The court may enlarge the time for taking action under Rules 1006(b)(2), 3002(c), 4003(b), 4004(a), 4007(c), 8002, and 9033, only to the extent and under the conditions stated in those rules, (emphasis added).”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he court shall give all creditors not less than 30 days notice of the time so fixed in the manner provided in Rule 2002”
6 later decisions 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.