In Re Braten’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 303 · 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 157
Relies on B.D. International Discount Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. · Porter v. States · In the Matter of Jane Marlene Busick, Debtor-Appellee · In Re Lough · Bd International Discount Corp Bd International Discount Corp v. Chase Manhattan Bank Na
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the absence of a “bona fide dispute” should also be required of an intervening petitioning creditor in order to harmonize this provision [§ 303(c) ] with the requirements for petitioning creditors under 11 U.S.C. § 303 (b)(1), because a joining creditor is accorded the same effect as an original petitioning creditor.... The omission of the [bona fide dispute language] should be regarded as a legislative oversight. In re Braten, 86 B.R. 340, 343 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1988).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Kujawa
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.