Sonnax Industries, Inc. v. Tri Component Products Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
907 F.2d 1280 · 1990
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 20 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 315 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably Securities & Exchange Commission v. Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc. (1992), 26 1673 74636 James Wilson Associates Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (1992)
39 federal appellate · 20 district · 1 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
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 362 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 157 · 28 U.S.C. § 158
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Little Creek Development Co. v. Commonwealth Mortgage Corp. · Di Pierro v. Taddeo · In re Saco Local Development Corp. · Crocker National Bank v. American Mariner Industries, 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 315 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether relief would result in a partial or complete resolution of the issues; (2) lack of any connection with or interference with the bankruptcy case; (3) whether the other proceeding involves the debtor as a fiduciary; (4) whether a specialized tribunal with the necessary expertise has been established to hear the cause of action; (5) whether the debtor’s insurer has assumed full responsibility for defending it; (6) whether the action primarily involves third parties; (7) whether litigation in another forum would prejudice the interests of other creditors; (8) whether the judgment claim arising from the other action is subject to equitable subordination; (9) whether movant’s success in the other proceeding would result in a judicial lien avoidable by the debtor; (10) the interests of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical resolution of litigation; (11) whether the parties are ready for trial in the other proceeding; and (12) impact of the stay on the parties and the balance of harms.”
57 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[0]n request of a party in interest or the United States trustee..., and after notice and a hearing, the court may convert a case under this chapter to a ease under chapter 7 of [the Bankruptcy Code] or may dismiss a case under this chapter, whichever is in the best interest of creditors and the estate, for cause, including [10 enumerated circumstances].”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(d) On request of a party in interest and after notice and a hearing, the court shall grant relief from the stay provided under subsection (a) of this section, such as by terminating, annulling, modifying, or conditioning such stay— (1) for cause, including the lack of adequate protection of an interest in property of such party in interest; or (2) with respect to a stay of an act against property under subsection (a) of this section, if— (A) the debtor does not have an equity in such property; and (B) such property is not necessary to an effective reorganization. (g) In any hearing under subsection (d) or (e) of this section concerning relief from the stay of any act under subsection (a) of this section— (1) the party requesting such relief has the burden of proof on the issue of the debtor’s equity in property; and (2) the party opposing such relief has the burden of proof on all other issues. Section 362(d)(1) The burden of proof on a motion to lift or modify the automatic stay is a shifting one. Section 362(d)(1) requires an initial showing of cause by the movant, while Section 362(g) places the burden of proof on the debtor for all issues other than “the debt- or’s equity in property.” If the movant fails to make an initial showing of cause, however, the court should deny relief without requiring any showing from the debtor that it is entitled to continued protection.”
9 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.