Phoenix Piccadilly, Ltd. v. Life Insurance’s Empirical Analysis
849 F.2d 1393 · 1988
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 230 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Carolin Corp. v. Miller (1989), C-TC 9th Avenue Partnership v. Norton Co. (1997)
16 federal appellate · 10 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. § 1112 · 11 U.S.C. § 362
Relies on Baskett v. United States · Albany Partners Ltd Albany Partners Ltd v. Wp Westbrook Albany Partners Ltd Wp Westbrook Ww C · Little Creek Development Co. v. Commonwealth Mortgage Corp. · In Re Edward J. Waldron, Debtors, Shell Oil Company, Cross-Appellee v. Edward J. Waldron and Elizabeth M. Waldron, His Wife, Cross-Appellants
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 230 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the debtor has only one asset, the property at issue; (2) the debtor has few unsecured creditors whose claims are relatively small compared to the claims of the secured creditors; (3) the debtor has few employees; (4) the property is subject to a foreclosure action as a result of arrearages on the debt; (5) the debtor’s financial problems essentially are a dispute between the debtor and the secured creditors which can be resolved in the pending state court action; and (6) the timing of the debtor’s filing evidences an intent to delay or frustrate the legitimate efforts of the debtor’s secured creditors to enforce their rights.”
44 later decisions quote this exact passage“... there is no particular test for determining whether a debtor has filed a petition in bad faith. Instead, the courts may consider any factors which evidence an intent to abuse the judicial process and the purposes of the reorganization provisions or, in particular, factors which evidence that the petition was filed to delay or frustrate the legitimate efforts of secured creditors to enforce their rights.”
23 later decisions quote this exact passage“the possibility of a successful reorganization cannot transform a bad faith filing into one undertaken in good faith.”
11 later decisions 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.