Leonard Aetna Finance Company v. Leonard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 district ·

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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Notwithstanding any waiver of exemptions, ... the debtor may avoid the fixing of a lien on an interest of the debtor in property to the extent that such lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled under subsection (b) of this section, if such lien is— (A) a judicial lien....”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Coats v. Ogg (In Re Coats) · In Re Jones

2. “A debtor is entitled to avoid a hen to the extent the debtor would have been entitled to an exemption under either the federal or the state statutes. The debtor’s right to claim avoidance of a hen on property under § 522(f) is determined by considering whether the property, if unencumbered, is exempted under the state statutory exemptions. If unencumbered property may be exempted under the state exemptions, then any non-possessory, non-purchase money hen on that property could be avoided under § 522(f). Any other reading of § 522(f) would make the language meaningless and would lead to an absurd result. If § 522(f) were to be read as allowing the debtor to avoid a hen only on the debtor’s equity in the exempt property, to which the hen would not ultimately attach under any circumstances, it would totally disregard the hen avoidance language set forth in § 522(f). In other words, if Appellant’s construction of § 522(f) were to be adopted, then as long as a security interest exists, the debtor would never be entitled to avoid a hen.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Richardson · Matter of McMasters

3. “Any other reading of § 522(f) would make the language meaningless and would lead to an absurd result. If § 522(f) were to be read as allowing the debtor to avoid a lien only on the debtor’s equity in the exempt property, to which the lien would not ultimately attach under any circumstances, it would totally disregard the lien avoidance language set forth in § 522(f). In other words, if Appellant’s construction of § 522(f) were to be adopted, then as long as a security interest exists, the debtor would never be entitled to avoid the lien.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Wink