Gianakas v. Gianakas’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 11 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 192 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably In Re Sampson (1993), Brody v. Brody (1993)
23 federal appellate · 11 district · 10 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 · 11 U.S.C. § 523 · 11 U.S.C. § 727 · 28 U.S.C. § 158
Relies on Universal Minerals, Inc. v. C. A. Hughes & Co. · Long v. Calhoun · Harrell v. Sharp · Shaver v. Shaver
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 192 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(5) to a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor, for alimony to, maintenance for, or support of such spouse or child, in connection with a separation agreement, divorce decree or other order of a court of record, ... or property settlement agreement, but not to the extent that— [[Image here]] (B) such debt includes a liability designated as alimony, maintenance, or support, unless such liability is actually in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support.”
22 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the language and substance of the agreement in the context of surrounding circumstances, using extrinsic evidence if necessary; (2) financial circumstances of the parties at the time of the settlement; and (3) an obligation that serves to maintain daily necessities such as food, housing, and transportation is indicative of a debt intended to be in the nature of support.”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An inquiry of the sort urged by the husband would put federal courts in the position of modifying the matrimonial decrees of state courts, thus interfering with the delicate state systems for dealing with the dissolution of marriages and the difficult and complex results that flow therefrom, (citations omitted). State-crafted family law mechanisms should not be disturbed by federal court intervention unless there is an unmistakable mandate from Congress to do so in order to achieve a valid federal objective.”
2 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.