Bush v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
912 F.2d 989 · 1990
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently November 2019 · most notably McCafferty v. McCafferty (1996), Paul v. Iglehart (2008)
12 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 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 10 U.S.C. § 1408 · 11 U.S.C. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 11 U.S.C. § 523 · 11 U.S.C. § 727 · 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (§ 206 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Aetna Life Ins Co of Hartford Conn v. Haworth · North Carolina v. Rice · MacKey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service, Inc. · Preiser v. Newkirk · Wrenn v. Weinberger
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress ever intended that a former wife's judicially decreed sole and separate property interest in a pension payable to her former husband should be subservient to the Bankruptcy Code's goal of giving the debtor a fresh start.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... As the courts below held, the facts of this case give rise to a trust relationship between Alvin Taylor and Bush. Her share of the pension was her sole and separate property and Alvin Taylor received it (via the monthly pension checks) as a constructive trustee for her benefit....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“would, in our view, apply equally to the arrearages between 1982 and 1987, despite the lower courts’ conclusion to the contrary — that this pre-petition amount was dischargeable indebtedness. If Taylor was responsible for the payments as a constructive trustee he was a trustee before the Taylors filed their bankruptcy petition as well as after.”
1 later decision 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.