Source: https://business-finance-restructuring.weil.com/bankruptcy-beach-reading/our-must-cite-bankruptcy-cases/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:36:16+00:00

Document:
August is that hot, humid time of the year when many professionals in the concrete jungles across this country decide to quietly slip away to more scenic locales (if you don’t believe us, try calling up your stockbroker right now… go ahead, we’ll wait). Unfortunately, fellow bankruptcy practitioner, the law waits for no one.
You know the drill. Just as you’re about to take off a little early to join your investment banker friends at the beach, an email arrives in your inbox. Congrats! You have been tasked with writing a memo about a bankruptcy topic you know next-to-nothing about. Oh, and did we mention it was due “yesterday”?
(1) The best place to start looking for any substantive answer, of course, is the Bankruptcy Code itself. If you happen to get lucky, the answer may be right there in the words of the statute, but sometimes you just need to spell it out for opposing counsel anyway. As U.S. v. Ron Pair Enters. will tell you, a Bankruptcy Code statute means what it says, and it says what it means.
(2) It turns out your client is demanding some, shall we say, “unusual” relief from the court, and the Bankruptcy Code lacks the plain language you were hoping to find. Sure, you can cite to section 105(a), but it looks a little lonely by itself on the page. What to do? Your answer may be a nod to Pepper v. Litton for the proposition that bankruptcy courts are courts of equity.
(3) While you are here, you better make sure the bankruptcy court can even grant the relief your client wants. As a loyal Weil Bankruptcy Blog reader, it’s almost redundant to mention, but bankruptcy court jurisdiction over state law issues starts with Stern v. Marshall—at least until Wellness Int’l Network v. Sharif arrives to explain things a little better.
(4) Maybe all your client really needs is to settle some crazy dispute so it can move on in life. In re W.T. Grant Co. sets the standard for court approval (and fortunately, it’s not a tough bar to clear). Sure, the case is almost as old as the Bankruptcy Code itself, but it still resonates today across the circuits whenever a Rule 9019 motion is filed.
(5) Another piece of advice—know your role. If you are looking to define the limits of a debtor in possession’s role and fiduciary duties, the Supreme Court’s Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Weintraub is the place to start.
(6) By the way, the debtor can’t maximize the value of the estate until it knows what counts as property of the estate. To make that determination, look to another oldie but goodie from the Supreme Court, Butner v. U.S., which explains where your section 541 analysis should begin. Unfortunately, it also explains that you’re going to need to find another set of statutes.
(7) Maybe the reason this brief was due yesterday is because someone forgot to give your client notice there was a confirmation hearing in the first place. Do you represent the mysterious and terrifying “unknown creditor” who was bound by a publication notice? Start with Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., the must-cite case for due process considerations (and the only case on our list that didn’t involve a financially-distressed entity).
(8) You’re reviewing the debtor’s plan, but you can’t figure out why the creditor you represent got stuck in a class all by its lonesome, when it seems to fit in perfectly well with another class. Are you looking for a chance to invoke a term named after the ever-popular former Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry? Do you want your objection to conjure up images of Moses (or Charlton Heston) coming down off of Mount Sinai holding stone tablets? Look no further than Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Greystone III, J.V. for the one case that fulfills those needs.
(9) Is the debtor trying to play the “new value” card in its plan? Or maybe you just need to brush up on the basics of absolute priority before you figure out your real plan of attack. Either way, Bank of Am. Nat. Trust and Savings Assoc. v. 203 N. LaSalle St. P’ship is your “must-cite” case.
(10) So there’s no “new value” issue, but maybe you can go after the debtor’s plan on feasibility. The chapter 11 case of Johns-Manville, once the world’s largest miner of asbestos, gave us Kane v. Johns-Mansville Corp.., a 1988 Second Circuit decision that has been cited for feasibility issues in every circuit in the country. Plus, what is there not to appreciate about a bankruptcy case filed in 1982 that nonetheless spawned (yet another) Second Circuit opinion as recently as two weeks ago?
Faithful readers, we know we could have doubled this list easily, but we want to hear from you. What are the cases that you use over and over—the ones that you consider “must-cites?” Click here to give us your suggestions, and we will update the list at the end of the summer just before everybody gets back to business.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.