White v. White’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably 77 Ohio St. 3d 64 - State ex rel. Miley v. Parrott (1996), In Re: Daniel Fordu, Debtor. Harold A. Corzin v. Julie A. Fordu (1999)
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 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. § 325 · 11 U.S.C. § 362 · 28 U.S.C. § 1334
Relies on Princess Lida of Thurn & Taxis v. Thompson · General Public Utilities Corporation v. Susquehanna Valley Alliance · Koch Refining Co. v. Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc. · Koch Refining v. Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc. · Selby v. Ford Motor 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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t is appropriate for bankruptcy courts to avoid invasions into family law matters”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Bankruptcy Code does not define a debtor’s interest in property; the answer to that question must be made after reference to state law. With regard to the present pending state court divorce proceedings, the bankruptcy court has acted to permit the state court with expertise in such matters to decide questions that are an inherent part of the divorce process. .... The bankruptcy judge proceeded to lift the stay so that the state court might “determine the substantive rights of the parties under applicable, non-bankruptcy domestic relations law and to allow the parties to reach, or the state court to impose, a property settlement based on the state court’s inquiry into the need for support and other factors under state law.” At the same time, the bankruptcy court indicated its “exclusive jurisdiction over property of the Debtor ... when the state court defines what is the property of the Debtor .... ” .... We affirm the decision to lift the stay under the circumstances here because we are concerned that the Bankruptcy Code could otherwise be abused as a weapon in a marital dispute.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e also suggest that the courts below urge the trustee to appear in the divorce action. By setting out his position as representative of the debtor’s creditors, the trustee could make the state court aware that other parties’ interests will be affected by the property division, thus possibly facilitating a fairer settlement for all parties concerned.”
2 later decisions 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.