McCafferty v. McCafferty’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions

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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Summary Judgment Procedure. (a) Any party moving for summary judgment should identify both the legal and factual basis for its motion. The text of the motion or an appendix thereto must include a “Statement of Material Facts.” If the movant relies upon evidence to support its motion, the motion should include appropriate citations to proper summary judgment evidence as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue of material fact for trial. Proper summary judgment evidence should be attached to the motion in accordance with section (d) of this rule. (b) Any party opposing the motion should serve and file a response that includes in the text of the response or as an appendix thereto, a “Statement of Genuine Issues.” The response should be supported by appropriate citations to proper summary judgment evidence as to which it is contended that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Proper summary judgment evidence should be attached to the response in accordance with the procedure contained in section (d) of this rule. (c) In resolving the motion for summary judgment, the Court will assume that the facts as claimed and supported by admissible evidence by the moving party are admitted to exist without controversy, except to the extent that such facts are controverted in the “Statement of Genuine Issues” filed in opposition to the motion, as supported by proper summary judgment evidence. The Court will not scour the record in an attempt to determine whether the re”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Weisbart v. Sanger Bank & Pilot Point Livestock Auction, Ltd. (In Re Tilton) · Melancon v. Jones (In Re Jones)

2. “Despite Mr. McCafferty’s arguments, we do not believe that his former wife was in the same position as the creditor in Omegas Group who argued for a constructive trust. Omegas Group arose out of a situation in which a claim based on state property law could not be reconciled with a major goal of federal bankruptcy law— ratable distribution among creditors. See Id. at 1450-51 (citation omitted) (recognizing that “state law must be applied in a manner consistent with federal bankruptcy law”); see Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48, 55 , 99 S.Ct. 914, 918 , 59 L.Ed.2d 136 (1979) (stating that property interests in a bankruptcy proceeding should be analyzed under state law unless federal law would require a different result). When such a conflict occurs, bankruptcy policy prevails. The Supreme Court has noted, however, that the policy of ratable distribution would not be relevant where the property at issue was not subject to distribution to creditors.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Bush · Gurley v. Mills (In Re Gurley)

3. “Omegas Group would allow “property already impressed with a constructive trust by a court in a separate proceeding prepet-ition ...” to be excluded from a bankrupt’s estate. Omegas Group, 16 F.3d at 1451 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gurley v. Mills (In Re Gurley) · In Re: Marilyn E. Morris, Debtor. John Poss v. Marilyn E. Morris