Fernstrom Storage and Van Company International Business Machines v. Fernstrom Storage and Van Company’s Empirical Analysis
938 F.2d 731 · 1991
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 5 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 134 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Zale Corporation Feld v. Zale Corporation (1995), Hendrix v. Page (1993)
21 federal appellate · 5 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. § 1101 · 11 U.S.C. § 501 · 11 U.S.C. § 502
Relies on Mahan & Rowsey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas · Midlantic National Bank v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection · A.H. Robins Co. v. Piccinin · Foust v. Munson Steamship Lines · Piccinin v. A. H. Robins Co.
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 134 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) [whether] [a]ny “great prejudice” to either the bankrupt estate or the debtor will result from continuation of a civil suit; (2) [whether] the hardship to the [non-bankrupt party] by maintenance of the stay considerably outweighs the hardship of the debtor; and (3) [whether] the creditor has a probability of prevailing on the merits of his case.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘The purpose of the proof of claim is to alert the court, trustee, and other creditors, as well as the debtor, to the claims against the estate.’ [citations omitted] .... the creditor holding the claim for which no proof of claim was filed has agreed that all it will seek from the debtor is a determination of liability. This determination will neither deplete the debtor’s assets or otherwise interfere with the administration of the bankruptcy proceeding, nor hinder the debtor’s fresh start at the close of the proceeding. Rather, it will operate only as ‘a prerequisite to recovery against another entity.’ [citation omitted] In such a situation, the notice function served by the rule that only proven claims will be allowed to share in the distribution is not frustrated by allowing a creditor that has not filed a proof of claim to proceed against the debtor.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The first [exception] is applicable where ‘there is such identity between the debtor and the third-party defendant that the debtor may be said to be the real party defendant and that a judgment against the third-party defendant will in effect be a judgment or finding against the debtor.’ ... The second [exception] operates where the pending litigation, though not brought against the debtor, would cause the debtor, the bankruptcy estate, or the reorganization plan ‘irreparable harm.’”
3 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.