In Re Fill’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently January 2008
1 federal appellate · 1 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 11 U.S.C. § 522
Relies on Longines-Wittnauer Watch Co. v. Barnes & Reinecke, Inc. · United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co. · White v. Stump · Samore v. Graham · Warren v. Taff (In Re Taff)
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The phrase “property to the extent reasonably necessary for the support of him and his dependents” means property required to meet present and anticipated needs of the individual and his dependents, as determined by the court after consideration of the individual’s responsibilities and all the present and anticipated property and income of the individual, including that which is exempt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Bates“property that is exempt under ... State or local law that is applicable on the date of the filing of the petition”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.