Palmacci v. Umpierrez’s Empirical Analysis
121 F.3d 781 · 1997
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 86 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 320 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably Hodgens v. General Dynamics Corp. (1998), McClellan v. Cantrell (2000)
47 federal appellate · 86 district ·
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. § 523
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Grogan v. Garner · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Pullman-Standard v. Swint · Field v. Mans
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 320 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'Exceptions to discharge are narrowly construed in furtherance of the Bankruptcy Code's fresh start policy.' However, 'the very purpose of certain sections of the law, like [ § 727(a) ], is to make certain that those who seek the shelter of the [B]ankruptcy [C]ode do not play fast and loose with their assets or with the reality of their affairs.'”
34 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If, at the time he made his promise, the debtor did not intend to perform, then he has made a false representation (false as to his intent) and the debt that arose as a result thereof is not dischargeable (if the other elements of § 523(a)(2)(A) are met). If he did so intend at the time he made his promise, but subsequently decided that he could not or would not so perform, then his initial representation was not false when made.”
23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. The debtor made a knowingly false representation; 2. The debtor did so with fraudulent intent, i.e., with “scienter;” 3. The debtor intended to induce the creditor to rely on the misrepresentation; 4. The misrepresentation induced reliance; 5. Reliance was justifiable; and 6. Reliance on the misrepresentation caused damage (pecuniary loss).”
7 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.