Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 887 F.2d 1041 - Hall v. Vance

Hall v. Vance’s Empirical Analysis

887 F.2d 1041 · 1989

Citation profile

115
cited by 115 later decisions
1
states following
February 2016
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 24 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 115 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably In the Matter of Woodbrook Associates, Debtor-Appellant (1994), In Re Sampson (1993)

20 federal appellate · 24 district · 1 state decisions

9101989199020002010decided

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. § 109 · 11 U.S.C. § 1104 · 11 U.S.C. § 1112 · 11 U.S.C. § 1125 · 11 U.S.C. § 349 · 28 U.S.C. § 636

Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants · Branding Iron Motel, Inc. v. Sandlian Equity, Inc.

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

  1. “[dismissal under § 1112(b)(2) is appropriate where the debtor’s failure to file an acceptable plan after a reasonable time indicates its inability to do so whether the reason for the debtor’s inability to file is its poor financial condition, the structure of the claims against it, or some other reason.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““In this case, the district court’s order specifically states that the hearing before the magistrate would be advisory and that its purpose was to ‘further define and focus the issues on appeal’. The district court explicitly reserved for itself the final decision on appeal. The district court, therefore, properly availed itself of the magistrate’s assistance to hasten its handling of this case. By reserving for itself the final decision of thé appeal, it avoided the error of the district court in Elcona Homes.””
    2 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.