Beard v. Braunstein’s Empirical Analysis
914 F.2d 434 · 1990
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 21 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 176 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Orion Pictures Corporation Orion Pictures Corporation v. Showtime Networks Inc (1993), Sempier v. Johnson & Higgins (1995)
18 federal appellate · 21 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. § 542 · 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 157 · 28 U.S.C. § 158 · 29 U.S.C. § 660 (§ 11 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) · 7 U.S.C. § 136 (Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972)
Relies on Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Crowell v. Benson · Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg · Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood · Curtis v. Loether
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 176 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'proceeding is core under section 157 if it invokes a substantive right provided by title 11 or if it is a proceeding that, by its nature, could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case.'”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A bankruptcy judge may hear a proceeding that is not a core proceeding but that is otherwise related to a case under title 11. In such proceeding, the bankruptcy judge shall submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court, and any final order or judgment shall be entered by the district judge after considering the bankruptcy judge's proposed findings and conclusions and after reviewing de novo those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(A) matters concerning the administration of the estate; (B) allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate or exemptions from property of the estate, and estimation of claims or interests for the purposes of confirming a plan under chapter 11, 12, or 13 of title 11 but not the liquidation or estimation of contingent or unliquidated personal injury tort or wrongful death claims against the estate for purposes of distribution in a case under title 11; (C) counterclaims by the estate against persons filing claims against the estate; (D) orders in respect to obtaining credit; (E) orders to turn over property of the estate; (F) proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover preferences; (G) motions to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay; (H) proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover fraudulent conveyances; (I) determinations as to the discharge-ability of particular debts; (J) objections to discharges; (K) determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens; (L) confirmations of plans; (M) orders approving the use or lease of property, including the use of cash collateral; (N) orders approving the sale of property other than property resulting from claims brought by the estate against persons who have not filed claims against the estate; (O) other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate or the adjustment of the debtor-creditor or the equity security holder relationship, except personal injury tort or wrongful death claims; and ”
6 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.