Harrison v. Donnelly’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions

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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]e think a willful disregard of what one knows to be his duty, an act which is against good morals, and wrongful in and of itself, and which necessarily causes injury and is done intentionally, may be said to be done wilfully and maliciously, so as to come within the exception.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Langer (In Re Langer) · Craycraft v. Adams (In Re Adams)

2. ““ * * * Formerly the federal courts held that the bankruptcy court could not determine upon a bankrupt’s application for a discharge whether the debt due a particular creditor was to be excepted from the operation of the discharge, the only proper issue being the bankrupt’s right to a discharge; and that the effect of the discharge, if granted upon a particular claim is to be determined when the discharge is pleaded or relied upon as a defense to the enforcement of such claim. In re Thomas, D.C.Iowa, 92 F. 912 ; In re Rhutassel, D.C.Iowa, 96 F. 597 ; In re Havens, 2 Cir., 272 F. 975 . However, since the decision of the Supreme Court in Local Loan Co. v. Hunt, 292 U.S. 234 , 54 S.Ct. 695 , 78 L.Ed. 1230 , 93 A.L.R. 195 , the jurisdiction of a bankruptcy court to limit the effect of its own order of discharge is no longer questioned. But the court is not bound to exercise such jurisdiction and does not do so under usual circumstances. In re Devereaux, 2 Cir., 76 F.2d 522 , certiorari denied [Devereaux v. Belsey], 296 U.S. 589 , 56 S. Ct. 100 , 80 L.Ed. 416 ; In re Barber, 3 Cir., 140 F.2d 727 ; Watts v. Ellithorpe, 1 Cir., 135 F.2d 1 . Such power should be exercised by the court only when a failure to act will result in embarrassment to the bankrupt or the creditor. The approved practice at present, unless such result is shown to exist, is to enter a general order of discharge and permit the bankrupt to plead his discharge as a defense in the state or other court where the cred”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Poolman v. Poolman · Kathleen Poolman v. William F. Poolman, Bankrupt

3. “The approved practice at present * * * is to enter a general order of discharge and permit the bankrupt to plead his discharge as a defense in the state or other court where the creditor seeks to enforce his claim. The court having jurisdiction of the subject matter of the claim and of the parties is competent to determine whether the debt is affected by the discharge in bankruptcy or whether the claim is excluded under any of the provisions of [bankruptcy laws].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Marriage of Long v. Long