Case Citator › Heitkamp v. Dyke (In re Dyke)

Heitkamp v. Dyke (In re Dyke)

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Fifth Circuit
Citation
943 F.2d 1435
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
30 of 30
Citing cases (total)
30
Treatment dates
1992
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. All 30 flagged citations have been read. One confirmed abrogation of Heitkamp v. Dyke (In re Dyke) is listed below: the Supreme Court held that an ERISA antialienation provision can exclude a pension interest from a bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2).
More on how this was screened

Dyke had held that ERISA alone could not provide that exclusion. Dyke's separate holding that ERISA does not preempt the Texas retirement exemption was not decided in the Supreme Court case.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

30 later cases cite Heitkamp v. Dyke (In re Dyke); 30 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Heitkamp v. Dyke (In re Dyke)?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court rejected Dyke's rule that an ERISA antialienation provision cannot qualify as “applicable nonbankruptcy law” under § 541(c)(2).

    Patterson v. Shumate · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The antialienation provision required for ERISA qualification and contained in the Plan at issue in this case thus constitutes an enforceable transfer restriction for purposes of §541(c)(2)’s exclusion of property from the bankruptcy estate. ... Compare In re Harline, 960 F. 2d 669 (CA10 1991) (ERISA anti-alienation provision constitutes “applicable nonbankruptcy law”), ... with In re Dyke, 943 F 2d 1435 (CA5 1991) (ERISA antialienation provision does not constitute “applicable non-bankruptcy law”);
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Heitkamp v. Dyke (In re Dyke) and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace