Stegall Federal Land Bank of St Louis’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Bonner Mall Partnership v. U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. (1993), In the Matter of Woodbrook Associates, Debtor-Appellant (1994)
4 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 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 Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Norwest Bank Worthington v. Ahlers · Case v. Los Angeles Lumber Products Co. · Kansas City Terminal Railway Co. v. Central Union Trust Co. · Teamsters National Freight Industry Negotiating Committee v. U.S. Truck 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] point of law merely assumed in an opinion, not discussed, is not authoritative.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The $2,000 in quantified new capital contributed to the farm is too little to warrant the drastic remedy of a cram-down. Cf. In re Rudy Debruycker Ranch, Inc., 84 B.R. 187, 190 (Bankr.D.Mont.1988). Cram-down comes into play only when a substantial minority of creditors are dissatisfied with the plan of reorganization and want to pursue their other remedies. (If more than one-half of the creditors, holding at least two-thirds of the total unsecured debt, approve the plan, it goes into effect automatically. See, 11 U.S.C. § 1126 (c)). So drastic an interference with property rights is not warranted in a case such as this where the contribution that the debtor proposes to make to the enterprise is nominal and he argues that that is good enough because the part of the estate that he seeks to retain — here, most of the estate — is worthless. If the contribution is nominal, the protesting creditors can hardly be thought duly compensated for surrendering against their will their remedies of foreclosure and forced sale, meager as those remedies may turn out to be if the value of the bankrupt estate is small relative to the secured debt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Snyder“A merely nominal benefit would not be commensurate with the cost to those creditors of giving up the benefits, slight though they may turn out to be, of a liquidation, in which the land and other assets would be sold at auction and might fetch a higher price than anyone had expected.”
1 later decision 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.