Wolf v. Campbell’s Empirical Analysis
159 F.3d 963 · 1998
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently September 2018
3 federal appellate · 1 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
Relies on Siriani v. Northwestern National Insurance · John Deere Co. v. Gerlach · Norris v. First National Bank in Luling · South Division Credit Union v. McFarland · State Bank of Standish v. Curry
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) A discharge under ... this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt ... (2) for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by — (A) false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud, other than a statement respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition....”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“... Campbell argues that the statutory phrase “to the extent obtained by” requires a creditor to demonstrate in a quantifiable manner that he was further injured because he lost a collection remedy or incurred some other detriment by forbearing. Campbell contends that the Wolfs cannot establish such injury since he was already insolvent when the Wolfs made the extension of credit. In other words, Campbell claims that the Wolfs lost nothing as a result of waiting to pursue collection because they would not have been able to collect from him anyway at the time they decided to forbear. The Ninth Circuit seems to agree with this argument. It has construed the statute to require the creditor to establish damage through the loss of a valuable collection remedy. But several other circuits have declined to so hold, and we think they have the better side of the argument. Compare In re Siriani, 967 F.2d 302 , 305 (9th Cir.1992), with Matter of McFarland, 84 F.3d 943, 947 (7th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 931 , 117 S.Ct. 302 , 136 L.Ed.2d 220 (1996); Matter of Norris, 70 F.3d 27 , 29 n. 6 (5th Cir.1995); In re Goodrich, 999 F.2d 22, 25 (1st Cir.1993). We reject Campbell’s theory regarding the meaning of the phrase “to the extent obtained by.” A contractual “refinancing” or “extension of credit” is sufficient without showing further damage. A creditor need not also show that he could have collected on the loan prior to the bankruptcy but for the new extension of credit. See the thor”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the sine qua non of the theory of promissory estoppel is that the promise be clear and definite”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.