Roete v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
936 F.2d 963 · 1991
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently November 2011 · most notably In Re Sumpter (1994), Taborski v. United States Internal Revenue Service (1992)
10 federal appellate · 2 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. § 362 · 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 151 (Bankruptcy Amendments)
Relies on Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Crenshaw · Brown v. Schweitzer · Morgan Guaranty Trust Company Of New York v. American Savings And Loan Association · Akros Installations, Inc. v. Grand National Bank
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) The filing of a petition under section 301 ... does not operate as a stay— (11) under subsection (a) of this section, of the presentment of a negotiable instrument and the giving of notice of and protesting dishonor of such an instrument[.]”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“As the district court appropriately noted, this subsection, which was added by Congress in 1984, was intended to be a clarifying amendment rather than a change in the law. Morgan, 804 F.2d at 1492. The legislative history of subsection (b)(ll) indicates that Congress wanted to make clear that “the automatic stay is not intended to interfere with the rights of a holder of a negotiable instrument to obtain payment.” Id. at 1492 n. 5. See also B. Weintraub, Bankruptcy Law Manual § 1.09(4) (1986) (“[Subsection (b)(ll)], permits holders of checks drawn by the debtor to deposit them for the purpose of preserving their rights on the instruments despite the filing of a bankruptcy petition.”).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Minter-Higgins“[t]hese well-settled principles point to the undeniable conclusion that [the check] is a `negotiable instrument' which the [creditors] `presented' when they attempted to cash it. Even [the debtor] does not dispute this common sense conclusion”
1 later decision 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.