Pine Top Insurance Company v. Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association Pine Top Insurance Company’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Jones Truck Lines, Inc. v. Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund (1997), Ario v. Ingram Micro, Inc. (2009)
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Dean v. Davis · National City Bank v. Hotchkiss · Continental & Commercial Trust & Savings Bank v. Chicago Title & Trust Co. · Ray v. Security Mutual Finance Corp.
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The focus of the “in fact” prong of the [§ 547(c)(1) analysis] is obviously on the temporal proximity between the issuance of credit and transfer of assets to secure that credit. However, the modifier “substantial” makes clear that contemporaneity is a flexible concept which requires a case-by-case inquiry into all relevant circumstances (e.g., length of delay, reason for delay, nature of the transaction, intentions of the parties, possible risk of fraud) surrounding the allegedly preferential transfer.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Bank [Rivera] was a new creditor, offering new capital to a struggling debtor, and it conditioned that new credit on the provision of security; a delay of three weeks [14 days] in transferring that security did not defeat the legitimate expectations of Pine Top’s [the Marinos’] other creditors because the net available assets were not diminished by the Bank’s [Rivera’s] entrance into the pool of creditors.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(A) intended by the debtor and the creditor ... to be a contemporaneous exchange for new value given to the debtor; and (B) in fact a substantially contemporaneous exchange.”
1 later decision 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.