Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 912 F.2d 1162 - In Re Tucson Estates

In Re Tucson Estates’s Empirical Analysis

912 F.2d 1162 · 1990

Citation profile

211
cited by 211 later decisions
June 2019
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 12 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 211 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Howe v. Vaughan (1990), Eastport Associates v. City of Los Angeles (1991)

34 federal appellate · 12 district ·

1030199020002010decided

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 · 11 U.S.C. § 541 · 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 157 · 28 U.S.C. § 158

Relies on Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Powell v. McCormack · Murphy v. Hunt · In Re Castlerock Properties, Debtor. Piombo Corporation, a California Corporation v. Castlerock Properties, a California Limited Partnership

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

  1. “(1) the effect or lack thereof on the efficient administration of the estate if a Court recommends abstention, (2) the extent to which state law issues predominate over bankruptcy issues, (3) the difficulty or unsettled nature of the applicable law, (4) the presence of a related proceeding commenced in state court or other nonbankruptcy court, (5) the jurisdictional basis, if any, other than 28 U.S.C. § 1334 , (6) the degree of relatedness or remoteness of the proceeding to the main bankruptcy case, (7) the substance rather than form of an asserted “core” proceeding, (8) the feasibility of severing state law claims from core bankruptcy matters to allow judgments to be entered in state court with enforcement left to the bankruptcy court, (9) the burden of [the bankruptcy court’s] docket, (10) the likelihood that the commencement of the proceeding in bankruptcy court involves forum shopping by one of the parties, (11) the existence of a right to a jury trial, and (12) the presence in the proceeding of non-debtor parties.”
    39 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “in the interest of justice, or in the interest of comity with State courts or respect for State law.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “'Cause' has no clear definition and is determined on a case-by-case basis.”
    4 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.