Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 992 F.2d 891 - Chabot

Chabot’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

72
cited by 72 later decisions
April 2010
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 7 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently April 2010 · most notably Henderson v. Belknap (1994), East Cambridge Savings Bank v. Silveira (1998)

7 federal appellate · 7 district ·

610199020002010decided

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. § 506

Relies on United States v. Turkette · Dewsnup v. Timm · Farrey v. Sanderfoot · Miller v. Briggs · Briggs v. Kent

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

  1. “(f) Notwithstanding any waiver of exemptions, the debtor may avoid the fixing of a hen on an interest of the debtor in property to the extent that such lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled under subsection (b) of this section, if such lien is— (1) a judicial hen....”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “An exemption is not impaired unless it is diminished in value. "The Bankruptcy Code allows debtors certain exemptions to ensure they receive a fresh start after bankruptcy. These exemptions are not unlimited, however ... [The debtors are entitled to] ... the amount of their homestead and no more. There is no basis for the proposition that the homestead exemption provides ownership benefits, such as the right to appreciation, beyond the set amount.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Debtors are entitled to the set amount of the exemption, no more and no less. If debtors wish to realize any appreciation, they can sell the property, receive the exemption amount from the proceeds and invest it as they see fit. Ward, 157 B.R. at 646 (quoting In re Chabot, 992 F.2d 891, 896 (9th Cir.1993)).”
    3 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.