In Re Hatfield’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 522 · 15 U.S.C. § 1638 (§ 128 of the Truth in Lending Act)
Relies on Pristas v. Landaus of Plymouth, Inc. · Matthews v. Transamerica Financial Services · Edmondson v. Allen-Russell Ford, Inc. · Mulcahy v. Indianapolis Morris Plan Corp. (In Re Mulcahy) · Johnson v. Richardson (In Re Richardson)
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Truth in Lending Act is highly technical and strict compliance is required. [The creditor] having access to the loan file and being a sophisticated lender, knew the [debtors] were giving a security interest in the bedroom furnishings they purchased fifteen months earlier. But the [debtors] may or may not have remembered the specifics of the earlier transaction, and it is not unreasonable to expect [the creditor] to disclose to the [debtors] what occurred fifteen months earlier by listing the bedroom furnishings rather than making a general reference to “goods being purchased.” Meaningful disclosure is achieved by [the creditor] telling the debtors the specific items of furniture that were subject to the security interest at the time of the refinance rather than relying on the [debtors’] memory of what transpired at the time of the original loan some fifteen months earlier.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.