Jones v. Atchison’s Empirical Analysis
925 F.2d 209 · 1991
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Moriarty v. Svec (1998), Frierdich v. Mottaz (2002)
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 11 U.S.C. § 548
Relies on Butner v. United States · California Department of Transportation v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. of California · Kent v. Sanborn Cooperative Grain Co. · 127 Ill. 2d 209 - Tompkins State Bank v. Niles
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]o argue ... that at the moment of the disclaimer there had to be some property interest which the beneficiary disclaimed ignores the express language of the Illinois disclaimer statute which says for all purposes there was not.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Ordinarily, bankruptcy courts look to Butner to answer this question. There, the Supreme Court addressed a circuit split over the ownership of rents. Some circuits followed state law in determining who received post-petition rents, whereas other circuits fashioned a federal rule of equity to allow mortgagees to receive the rents. Ultimately, the Court rejected the federal equity rule, explaining that "Congress has generally left the determination of property rights in the assets of a bankrupt's estate to state law." Thus, "[u]nless some federal interest requires a different result, there is no reason why such interests should be analyzed differently simply because an interested party is involved in a bankruptcy proceeding." Applying the principle of Butner to similar disclaimers, several appellate courts have found § 548 inapplicable. For example, the Seventh Circuit took a broad view of Butner , explaining that "[a]ll applicable state law must be construed to determine whether a debtor possesses a property interest," including the relation back rule. The contrary view, the court found, "fail[ed] to give full application to the relation back doctrine under applicable state laws." Based on this deferential approach to state law, the Atchison court concluded that a disclaimer was not a "transfer of an interest in property" subject to avoidance under § 548(a).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Absent a federal provision to the contrary, a debtor's interest in property is determined by applicable state law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.