McCollam v. L McCollam’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently January 2010
2 federal appellate ·
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 450 So. 2d 217 - Holly v. Auld · 509 So. 2d 268 - Streeter v. Sullivan · Young v. Adler · Commonwealth v. Beisel · In Re Howerton
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The cash surrender values of life insurance policies issued upon the lives of citizens or residents of the state and the proceeds of annuity contracts issued to citizens or residents of the state, upon whatever form, shall not in any case be liable to attachment, garnishment or legal process in favor of any creditor of the person whose life is so insured or of any creditor of the person who is the beneficiary of such annuity contract, unless the insurance policy or annuity contract was effected for the benefit of such creditor.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“had the legislature intended to limit the exemption to particular annuity contracts, it would have included such restrictive language [in the statute].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The Florida statute, on its face, appears to exempt all annuity contracts from creditor claims in bankruptcy, regardless of the underlying obligations that the contracts represent. Appellant, however, presents a viable argument against such a literal interpretation of this statute. He argues that allowance of the exemption at issue here “leads the debtor to gloss over an asset: her claim against. Travelers.” Appellant reasons that without the existence of the original debt owed by Travelers to McCollam [the debtor], there never would have been an annuity. The annuity, he continues, is merely- a means to secure a steady stream of payments of a debt. Appellant emphasizes that while the debtor listed the annuity as an exempt asset, she did not list the debt from Travelers among her assets. He concludes that the debt owed to the debtor by Travelers is nonexempt property of McCollam’s bankrupt estate. The fact that an annuity provides the schedule of payments for that debt does not, he argues, mean that the debt, the annuity, and the payments thereunder are exempt from the claims of general unsecured creditors of the debtor’s bankrupt estate. The bankruptcy court’s opinion in In re Vincent R. Benedict, on which the district court relied in this case, is factually similar to this case____A Florida court may find the reasoning of the court in In re Benedict unpersuasive. Appellant states that the annuity paid by Travelers to McCollam is, in substance, a tort settlement of a debt, me”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Orso
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.