Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 870 F.2d 1340 - In the Matter of Russell E Sinclair Sr and M Marguerite Sinclairs

In the Matter of Russell E Sinclair Sr and M Marguerite Sinclairs’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

134
cited by 134 later decisions
5
states following
April 2025
most recently cited

38 federal appellate · 6 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 134 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably In Re: The Prudential Insurance Company Of America Sales Practices Litigation (1998), In Re Jartran Inc Fruehauf Corporation (1989)

38 federal appellate · 6 district · 10 state decisions

69019801990200020102020decided

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 United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. · Pierce v. Underwood · Caminetti v. United States · United States v. American Trucking Associations · Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill

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

  1. “clarity depends on context, which legislative history may illuminate.”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[l]egislative history may show ... that a text `plain' at first reading has a strikingly different meaning-but [legislative history] may not be used to show an `intent' at variance with the meaning of the text.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “The debtors made an alternative request. They asked the bankruptcy judge to allow them to dismiss their Chapter 11 case and start a new one under Chapter 12. This would avoid the ban in § 302(c)(1).... The [debtors] do not want to dismiss the case with prejudice, pay all of their accrued debts, and then file a fresh bankruptcy action that could go forward from the date of refiling. They want, instead, to file a Chapter 12 case that would be administered as if it had been commenced [when the Chapter 11 case was filed]. This is conversion by another name. Statutes control more than nomenclature; they are addressed to conduct. Proposals for conversion by another name are proposals for conversion. This one was properly rejected on the authority of § 302(c)(1).”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.