Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 972 F.2d 730 - Paeplow Foley III

Paeplow Foley III’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
1
states following
August 2019
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably At & T Universal Card Services v. Alvi (In Re Alvi) (1996), Bunker v. Peyton (2002)

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

1501980199020002010decided

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 Brewer v. United States · Lockwood v. Exchange Bank · Napotnik v. Equibank and Parkvale Savings Association · Sumy v. Schlossberg · Magill v. Newman

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

  1. “At any rate, the legislative history behind § 541 makes clear that Congress intended a debtor’s interest in entirety property, at least initially, to enter the bankruptcy estate. Hunter, 970 F.2d at 305-06 ; Schlossberg, 777 F.2d at 925; Napotnik, 679 F.2d at 318. The House Report to § 541 notes, for example, that the undivided interest of a spouse who is a debtor in a case under the Act is property of the estate. This is contrary to the present Act which looks to state law to determine what happens with respect to property jointly owned by husband and wife. H.R.Doc. No. 137, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. 195 (1973). That is not to say Congress intended to circumvent the protection afforded entirety property under state law. It simply means congress intended entirety property to enter the bankruptcy estate and to pass out of the estate if subject to an exemption, and if claimed by the debtor on his or her bankruptcy schedules. In re Hunter, 122 B.R. at 355. [emphasis supplied]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The purpose of the amendment was to clarify that discharge precludes only actions to establish personal liability, not actions to enforce a lien against property of the debtor. Cases and commentators agree that Congress intended to resolve the apparent inconsistency between section 524(a)(2) and other portions of the Code, such as section 506(d) — which allows certain liens to pass through bankruptcy unaffected— and section 522(c)(2) — which states that exempt property is still subject to certain liens....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The 1984 amendment, then, was designed to make a clarification: while creditors are enjoined from seeking to collect on the pre-petition liabilities of a discharged debtor, creditors are not prohibited from executing a judgment lien against a discharged debtor’s property, as long as the judgment was obtained before discharge.”
    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.