Kelleran v. Andrijevic’s Empirical Analysis
825 F.2d 692 · 1987
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 165 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably Baker v. Latham Sparrowbush Associates (1991), Browning v. Navarro (1989)
15 federal appellate · 3 district · 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. § 105 · 11 U.S.C. § 362 · 11 U.S.C. § 510 · 28 U.S.C. § 1738
Relies on Allen v. McCurry · Pepper v. Litton · Local Loan Co. v. Hunt · Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S. A. v. Rogers · Vanston Bondholders Protective Committee v. Green
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 165 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘Congress has specifically required all federal courts to give preclusive effect to state-court judgments whenever the courts of the State from which the judgments emerged would do so ... ’ ” Kelleran v. Andrijevic, 825 F.2d 692, 694 (2d Cir.1987) (quoting Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 96 , 101 S.Ct. 411 , 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980)).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It has long been a basic function of the bankruptcy court, both by reason of its equitable powers and the bankruptcy statute, to pass upon the validity of creditors’ claims.” In re Farrell, 27 B.R. 241, 245 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1982). The bankruptcy court “in passing on allowance of claims sits as a court of equity-In the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction the bankruptcy court has the power to sift the circumstances surrounding any claim to see that injustice or unfairness is not done in administration of the bankrupt estate.” Pepper, 308 U.S. at 307-08 , 60 S.Ct. 238 . This sifting includes “full power to inquire into the validity of any claim asserted against the estate and to disallow it if it is ascertained to be without lawful existence. And the mere fact that a claim has been reduced to judgment does not prevent such an inquiry.” Pepper, 308 U.S. at 305 , 60 S.Ct. 238 (citations omitted) (emphasis supplied). These broad powers have been “invoked to the end that fraud will not prevail, that substance will not give way to form, that technical considerations will not prevent substantial justice from being done.” Pepper, 308 U.S. at 305 , 60 S.Ct. 238 [.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] bankruptcy court is bound to give preclusive effect to state court judgments to the same extent that the court of the state would do so.... [A]nd a bankruptcy court could “look beyond a state court default judgment^] where the judgment was procured by collusion or fraud, ... or where the rendering court lacked jurisdiction.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re La Brada · Dionne v. Keating
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.