Olympia & York Florida Equity Corp. v. Bank of New York’s Empirical Analysis
913 F.2d 873 · 1990
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Bryson Properties Xviii Travelers Insurance Company v. Bryson Properties Xviii (1992), Greystone III Joint Venture Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Greystone III Joint Venture (1991)
3 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 11 U.S.C. § 1122 · 11 U.S.C. § 1129 · 11 U.S.C. § 1142 · 11 U.S.C. § 510 · 11 U.S.C. § 541 · 28 U.S.C. § 157 · 28 U.S.C. § 46
Relies on Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council · Machinery Rental, Inc. v. Herpel · Arnold Print Works, Inc. v. Apkin · Teamsters National Freight Industry Negotiating Committee v. U.S. Truck Co.
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although the proponent of a plan of reorganization has considerable discretion to classify claims and interests according to the facts and circumstances of the case, that discretion is not unlimited. There must be some limit on the debtor’s power to classify creditors.... The potential for abuse would be significant otherwise. ... If the plan unfairly creates too many or too few classes, if the classifications are designed to manipulate class voting, or if the classification scheme violates basic priority rights, the plan cannot be confirmed.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a plan may place a claim or interest in a particular class only if such claim or interest is substantially similar to the other claims or interest of such class.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Notwithstanding section 510(a) of [the Bankruptcy Code], if all of the applicable requirements of [section 1129(a) of the Bankruptcy Code] other than [the requirement contained in section 1129(a)(8) that a plan must be accepted by all impaired classes] are met with respect to a plan, the court, on request of the proponent of the plan, shall confirm the plan notwithstanding the requirements of such paragraph if the plan does not discriminate unfairly, and is fair and equitable, with respect to each class of claims or interests that is impaired under, and has not accepted, the plan.”
1 later decision 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.