Erin Food Services Inc Travelers Insurance Company v. Cambridge Meridian Group Inc Erin Food Services Inc Travelers Insurance Company’s Empirical Analysis
980 F.2d 792 · 1992
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 11 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently July 2014 · most notably Juniper Development Group v. Kahn (1993), Gately v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1993)
12 federal appellate · 11 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
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 11 U.S.C. § 502 · 11 U.S.C. § 509 · 11 U.S.C. § 544 · 11 U.S.C. § 547 · 11 U.S.C. § 548 · 11 U.S.C. § 550
Relies on Midlantic National Bank v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection · Dean v. Davis · Palmer Clay Products Co. v. Brown · Levit Vn v. Ingersoll Rand Financial Corporation · Woburn Associates v. Kahn
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a quantifiable monetary reduction in the insider-creditor's contingent claim”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We need not revisit the underlying issue addressed in Deprizio. First, the difficulties hampering each attempt (including Deprizio) to unravel the riddle of ill-expressed (or unexpressed) congressional intent are well recorded. Second, a definitive congressional resolution to the riddle may be in the offing. See S.1985, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. (1992); see also 138 Cong. Rec. S.8241 (“[S]ection [204] seeks to overturn the Deprizio line of opinions ... ”). Finally, and more importantly, the particular circumstances before us afford a more conspicuous basis for decision. Therefore, for present purposes, we assume, without deciding, that De-prizio correctly interprets the legislative directives to be applied to the present claim.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) to or for the benefit of a creditor; (2) to or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor before such transfer was made; (3) made while the debtor was insolvent; (4) made (A) on or within 90 days before the date of the filing of the petition; or (B) between ninety days and one year before the date of the filing of the petition, if such creditor at the time of such transfer was an insider; and (5) That enables such creditor to receive more than such creditor would receive if (A) the case were a case under chapter 7 of this title; (B) the transfer had not been made; and (C)such creditor received payment of such debt to the extent provided by the provisions of this title.”
5 later decisions 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.