Bankr. L. Rep. P 72,172, 5 Ucc rep.serv.2d 996 in Re Albert J. Wegner Margie Wegner, Debtors. William C. Griffel v. Gregory G. Murphy, Bankruptcy Trustee’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably Everex Systems, Inc. v. Cadtrak Corp. (1996), Ralar Distributors, Inc. v. Rubbermaid, Inc. (1993)
4 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. § 362
Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Bildisco & Bildisco · Pizza of Hawaii, Inc. v. Shakey's, Inc. · Ragsdale v. Haller · Cochise College Park Inc Hall v. Perry B-72-393 Phx Wpc · Acequia, Inc. v. Clinton
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the obligations of both parties are so far unperformed that the failure of either party to complete performance would constitute a material breach and thus excuse the performance of the other”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Heward Bros. · In re Sjoquist“a contract ... on which performance is due to some extent on both sides”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We hold that the contract is in fact executory. * * sk * * * The last issue to be determined is whether the sales agreement was terminated prior to January 3, 1985, the date on which debtor filed for bankruptcy. If so, the property would have automatically reverted back to appellant, leaving debt- or, and thus also the trustee in bankruptcy, with no interest in the property. Since the bankruptcy court held that the 1982 sales agreement was not an exec-utory contract, it did not determine whether the sales agreement terminated prior to the date debtor filed for bankruptcy. # * H« # # # To implement our conclusion that the contract was executory, we hold as a matter of law that the return of possession [by debtor] effectuated a termination of the contract [on December 12, 1984]. By that time, the debtor had written appellant expressing his inability to continue to fulfill his purchase obligations, returned the cattle and equipment to appellant’s possession, and signed over three checks representing proceeds of sale of certain cull cows. >{c * . * >f< $ $ Based upon the finding of facts made by the bankruptcy court, we find that the debtor intended to abandon or cancel the contract as of December 10, 1984, and that appellant accepted the rescission and received possession of the cattle and equipment on December 12, 1984. 1 Thus, the contract was effectively terminated by the mutual consent of the parties as of that date. Since we have found that the contract was duly t”
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.