In the Matter of Gladys E. Shondel, Debtor-Appellant’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably In the Matter of Ronald J. Witkowski, Debtor-Appellant (1994), Hendrix v. Page (1993)
15 federal appellate · 2 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. § 350
Relies on Mahan & Rowsey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas · Lines v. Frederick · 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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] case may be reopened in the court in which such case was closed to administer assets, to accord relief to the debtor, or for other cause.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A decision to reopen a case for other cause lies within the discretion of the bankruptcy court and will be reversed only for an abuse of that discretion. In exercising its discretion to reopen a case, the bankruptcy court should exercise its equitable powers with respect to substance and not technical considerations that will prevent substantial justice. The trend in reopening cases under section 350(b) has thus been to allow the bankruptcy judge broad discretion to weigh the equitable factors in each case.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] bankruptcy court exercises equitable powers and ... should emphasize substance and not technical considerations that will prevent substantial justice.... [C]ounsel neglect or mistake ... may be a factor in the finding of 'other cause' " under § 350(b) (citations and internal quotes omitted)). The issue of the propriety of Rule 60(b) relief, however, requires a more searching analysis. Rule 60(b) provides in relevant part: 27 On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence ...; (3) fraud ..., misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. 28 Although the bankruptcy court did not specify by number which subsections of Rule 60(b) grounded its decision, it apparently relied on subsections (1) (based on "mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect,”
2 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.