McElhanon v. Hing’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably 93 Md. App. 168 - Fraidin v. Weitzman (1992), McElhanon v. Hing (1986)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 31 state decisions
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. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005)
Relies on Blanton v. General Electric Credit Corp. · Lyon v. California · Tovrea Land and Cattle Company v. Linsenmeyer · Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. · State v. Harvill
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“However, the action for damages arising from conspiracy to commit a fraudulent conveyance is a remedy that should be used only where the remedies under the UFCA are inadequate. Such a situation may occur where the fraudulent transferee has subsequently transferred the property to a bona fide purchaser for value [e.g., Transamerica v. Trout, 145 Ariz. 355 , 701 P.2d 851 (App.1985) ] or where the fraudulent transferee has allowed, or, as in this case, caused the fraudulently transferred property to substantially decrease in value. We hold that the common law action for damages against a conspirator in a fraudulent conveyance is the value of the property fraudulently transferred or the amount of the debt, whichever is less. Our formulation of damages is similar to the result reached by courts exercising their powers in equity to award money damages against a fraudulent transferee.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he privilege an attorney has for his actions in representing a client is a qualified one that does not extend to the intentional torts of malicious prosecution and abuse of process.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The circumstaneial evidence [at trial] strongly indicates that Hing drafted the stock transfer agreement and participated in the transfer discussion, knowing that Harris was or would be rendered insolvent, knowing that Greer was financially unstable if not insolvent, knowing that the consideration was inadequate and that the stock transfer agreement itself was a sham, and with the actual intention on Hing’s part of hindering, delaying, and defrauding McElhanon. Additionally, based upon the delay occasioned by Hing’s acts and those of his co-conspirators, including the looting of the corporation by the co-conspirators, the value of the stock subsequently decreased so as to give rise to a cause of action for money damages by McElhanon____”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McElhanon v. Hing
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.