Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 964 F.2d 342 - Robbins Robbins v. C Robbins

Robbins Robbins v. C Robbins’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

93
cited by 93 later decisions
2
states following
July 2019
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Benedor Corp. v. Conejo Enterprises, Inc. (1996), Reitnauer v. Texas Exotic Feline Foundation, Inc. (1998)

2 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

330199020002010decided

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

Relies on Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo · Burrus · United States v. Yazell · Holtkamp v. Littlefield · Mac Donald v. Mac Donald

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

  1. “(1) whether the issues in the pending litigation involve only state law, so the expertise of the bankruptcy court is unnecessary; (2) whether modifying the stay will promote judicial economy and whether there would be greater interference with the bankruptcy case if the stay were not lifted because matters would have to be litigated in bankruptcy court; and (3) whether the estate can be protected properly by a requirement that creditors seek enforcement of any judgment through the bankruptcy court.”
    16 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “by terminating, annulling, modifying, or conditioning such stay for cause , including the lack of adequate protection of an interest in property of such party in interest.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[b]ecause the Code provides no definition of what constitutes 'cause,' courts must determine when discretionary relief is appropriate on a case-by-case basis.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.