Gallucci v. Grant’s Empirical Analysis
931 F.2d 738 · 1991
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Zale Corporation Feld v. Zale Corporation (1995), Torkelsen v. Maggio (1996)
8 federal appellate · 3 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. § 327 · 11 U.S.C. § 541 · 11 U.S.C. § 542 · 11 U.S.C. § 547 · 28 U.S.C. § 157
Relies on Pacor Inc. v. Higgins · Heagle v. Haug (In Re Haug) · Holland Industries, Inc. v. United States (In Re Holland Industries, Inc.) · First National Bank of Geneva v. Trustee John Biallas (In Re Denalco Corp.)
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The “impact on the bankruptcy estate” test for determining “related to” jurisdiction is irrelevant to the issue of whether the district court/bankruptcy court has subject matter jurisdiction of core bankruptcy proceedings arising under the Code itself.... In “arising under” jurisdiction, no such bridge to the bankruptcy process is needed. The causes of action are an integral part of the bankruptcy process itself, according to Congress’ design. The Pacor/Lemco Gypsum test of whether a lawsuit “could conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy” is only relevant to determining if an action brought solely under state or other non-bankruptcy law is sufficiently “related-to” a “cause under title 11” (a bankruptcy case) to allow district court bankruptcy jurisdiction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“If the action does not involve property of the estate, then not only is it a noncore proceeding, it is an unrelated matter completely beyond the bankruptcy court's subject-matter junsdiction. This can be gleaned from a general principle of bankruptcy law: if the resolution of litigation cannot affect the administration of the estate, the bankruptcy court does not have jurisdiction to decide it.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Although bankruptcy courts by statute may hear “any or all cases under title 11 and any or all core proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11,” 28 U.S.C. § 157 (a) (1988), they may not entertain cases involving noncore, unrelated matters.”
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.