In the Matter of Robert John Love, Debtor-Appellant’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 17 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 280 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably In the Matter of Malen A. Juzwiak, Debtor-Appellant (1996), In the Matter of Daniel J Yonikus and Carolyn S Yonikuss Appeal of Daniel J Yonikus
25 federal appellate · 17 district · 1 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. § 1307 · 11 U.S.C. § 1325
Relies on United States v. Singer Manufacturing Co. · Albany Partners Ltd Albany Partners Ltd v. Wp Westbrook Albany Partners Ltd Wp Westbrook Ww C · Little Creek Development Co. v. Commonwealth Mortgage Corp. · Rimgale Ravenot v. S Rimgale · Carolin Corp. v. Miller
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 280 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the nature of the debt ...; the timing of the petition; how the debt arose; the debt- or’s motive in filing the petition; how the debtor’s actions affected creditors; the debtor’s treatment of creditors both before and after the petition was filed; and whether the debtor has been forthcoming with the bankruptcy court and the creditors.”
43 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Lilley · Marshall v. Blake“The bankruptcy court’s good faith finding is a purely factual finding evaluated under the clearly erroneous standard of review. The clearly erroneous standard requires this court to give great deference to the bankruptcy court, the trier of fact. Under this standard, if the trial court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, a reviewing court may not reverse even if convinced that it would have weighed the evidence differently as trier of fact. Indeed, reversal under the clearly erroneous standard is only warranted if “the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“good faith is a term incapable of precise definition.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Plichta · Warren v. Peterson
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.