In Re McDaniels’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently July 2015
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. § 105 · 11 U.S.C. § 327 · 11 U.S.C. § 330 · 11 U.S.C. § 701 · 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 157
Relies on Pepper v. Litton · Bank of Marin v. England · Securities & Exchange Commission v. United States Realty & Improvement Co. · Akers v. United States · Israel v. Futuronics Corp.
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The application must be one which would have been approved originally by the Court, measured by the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 327 and Bankruptcy Rule 2014 at or before the time the services were actually commenced; (2) Evidence must appear in the record of the case which demonstrates that the Court and other interested parties had actual knowledge of the legal services being rendered by the applicant; (3) An application seeking an order nunc pro tunc must be filed as soon as the matter is brought to the attention of the applicant; (4) The party for whom the work was performed approves the entry of the nunc pro tunc order; (5) The applicant has provided notice of the application for the nunc pro tunc order to creditors and parties in interest and has provided an opportunity for filing objections; (6) No creditor or party in interest offers reasonable objection to the entry of the nunc pro tunc order; (7) If the applicant is also seeking compensation at this point, the applicant must have provided notice of the application for fees to any parties in interest, thus providing an opportunity for objections as provided in 11 U.S.C. § 330 ; (8) A sustainable objection must not be filed to the applicants request for attorney fees; (9) No actual or potential-prejudice will inure to the estate or other parties in interest; (10) The applicant’s failure to seek pre-employment approval is satisfactorily explained; (11) The applicant exhibits no pattern of inattention or negligence i”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Martin“Bankruptcy judges may hear and determine all cases under title 11 and all core proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11, referred under subsection (a) of this section, and may enter appropriate orders and judgments, subject to review under section 158 of this title.”
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.