Federal Savings & Loan Ins. v. D & F Construction, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably Briscoe Enterprises Ltd II Heartland Federal Savings Loan Association v. Briscoe Enterprises Ltd II Regalridge Apartments (1993), Greystone III Joint Venture Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Greystone III Joint Venture (1991)
9 federal appellate · 2 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. § 102 · 11 U.S.C. § 1111 · 11 U.S.C. § 1129
Relies on United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd. · United Savings Ass'n v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd. · In Re Anderson Oaks (Phase I) Ltd. Partnership · In Re Spanish Lake Associates
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(2) For the purpose of this subsection, the condition that a plan be fair and equitable with respect to a class includes the following requirements: (B) With respect to a class of unsecured claims— (ii) the holder of any claim or interest that is junior to the claims of such class will not receive or retain under the plan on account of such junior claim or interest any property,”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a] court must consider the entire plan in the context of the rights of the creditors under state law and the particular facts and circumstances when determining whether a plan is “fair and equitable.” See Spanish Lake Associates, 92 B.R. 875, 878 (Bankr.E.D.Mo.1988); In re Edgewater Motel, Inc., 85 B.R. 989, 998 (Bankr.E.D.Tenn.1988).”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage““To begin with, simple technical compliance with the requirements of § 1129(b)(2) does not assure that the plan is fair and equitable. Id. Instead, this section merely sets minimal standards that a plan must meet and does not require that ‘every plan not prohibited be approved’. Id."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Matter of Kennedy · In Re Simons
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.