In re Sequoia Auto Brokers, Ltd. v. Idell’s Empirical Analysis
827 F.2d 1281 · 1987
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 135 later decisions — most recently August 2012 · most notably Caldwell v. Unified Capital Corp. (1996), Burd v. Walters (1989)
28 federal appellate · 7 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 10 U.S.C. § 848 · 11 U.S.C. § 105 · 11 U.S.C. § 521 · 18 U.S.C. § 401 · 2 U.S.C. § 192 · 26 U.S.C. § 7441 · 26 U.S.C. § 7456 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Vandygriff v. Phillips · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co. · Thomas v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co.
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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Contempt committed in presence of bankruptcy judge”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Several lower courts have determined that civil contempt proceedings, though they do not fit within any of the explicit "core” proceedings listed, they do within the section 157(b)(2)(o) catchall provision, which includes as being core "other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate or the adjustment of the debtor-creditor or the equity security holder relationship, except personal injury tort or wrongful death claims.” [citations omitted]. In effect, these courts have reasoned that civil contempt is itself core because it is inseparable from the obviously core proceedings that the civil contempt power helps facilitate. If bankruptcy civil contempt orders may arguably be core because their compliance coercive, remedial nature makes them inseparable from the underlying core proceedings, just as civil contempts generally have been viewed as part of the underlying case, then the same considerations may likewise arguably support an implicit section 157 grant to bankruptcy courts of civil contempt power. However, these considerations do not support the inference that Congress empowered bankruptcy courts to criminally punish for willful disobedience of their orders, especially where the disobedience was not in (or near) the presence of the court.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“(a) The court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title. No provision of this title providing for the raising of an issue by a party in interest shall be construed to preclude the court from, sua sponte, taking any action or making any determination necessary or appropriate to enforce or implement court orders or rules, or to prevent an abuse of process.”
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.