Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 943 F.2d 261 - Marcus Hook Development Park Inc Ta

Marcus Hook Development Park Inc Ta’s Empirical Analysis

943 F.2d 261 · 1991

Citation profile

200
cited by 200 later decisions
2
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 14 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 200 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably In re Combustion Engineering, Inc. (2004), In Re Resorts International, Inc. (2004)

21 federal appellate · 14 district · 2 state decisions

8601991200020102020decided

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. § 105

Relies on Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Mahan & Rowsey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas · Pacor Inc. v. Higgins · Baltimore City Department of Social Services v. Bouknight · Universal Minerals, Inc. v. C. A. Hughes & 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 200 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the outcome of that proceeding could conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy.”
    26 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “`by its nature, could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case.'”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “A bankruptcy judge may hear a proceeding that is not a core proceeding but that is otherwise related to a case under title 11. In such proceeding, the bankruptcy judge shall submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court, and any final order or judgment shall be entered by the district judge after considering the bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings and conclusions and after reviewing de novo those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected.”
    10 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.