Dow Corning Corporation Lindsey v. O'Brien Tanski Tanzer and Young Health Care Providers of Connecticut’s Empirical Analysis
86 F.3d 482 · 1996
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 25 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 197 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably Jove Engineering, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service (1996), In re Combustion Engineering, Inc. (2004)
33 federal appellate · 25 district · 2 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
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · Mahan & Rowsey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas · Celotex Corporation v. Edwards · Pacor Inc. v. Higgins
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 197 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Upon timely motion of a party in a proceeding based upon a State law claim or State law cause of action, related to a case under title 11 but not arising under title 11 or arising in a case under title 11, with respect to which an action could not have been commenced in a court of the United States absent jurisdiction under this section, the district court shall abstain from hearing such proceeding if an action is commenced, and can be timely adjudicated, in a State forum of appropriate jurisdiction.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he “usual articulation of test for determining whether a civil proceeding is related to bankruptcy is whether the outcome of that proceeding could conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy.” An action is “related to bankruptcy if the outcome could alter the debtor’s rights, liabilities, options, or freedom of action (either positively or negatively) and which in any way impacts upon the handling and administration of the bankrupt estate.” A proceeding “need not necessarily be against the debtor or against the debtor’s property” to satisfy the requirements for “related to” jurisdiction. However, “the mere fact that there may be common issues of fact between a civil proceeding and a controversy involving the bankruptcy estate does not bring the matter within the scope of section [1334(b)].” Instead, “there must be some nexus between the ‘related’ civil proceeding and the title 11 case.””
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A key word in [the] test is ‘conceivable.’ Certainty, or even likelihood, is not a requirement. Bankruptcy jurisdiction will exist so long as it is possible that a proceeding may impact on ‘the debtor’s rights, liabilities, options, or freedom of action’ or the ‘handling and administration of the bankrupt estate.’”
5 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.