Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 217 F.3d 890 - McClellan v. Cantrell

McClellan v. Cantrell’s Empirical Analysis

217 F.3d 890 · 2000

Citation profile

224
cited by 224 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
October 2021
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 224 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2021 · most notably Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz (2016), in Re: Robert Spigel

22 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

1240200020102020decided

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) · 11 U.S.C. § 523 · 11 U.S.C. § 528 (§ 229 of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005)

Relies on Field v. Mans · Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green · Johnson v. Home State Bank · Gleason v. Thaw · Beatty v. . Guggenheim Exploration Co.

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

  1. “‘Fraud is a generic term, which embraces all the multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise and which are resorted to by one individual to gain an advantage over another by false suggestions or by the suppression of truth. No definite and invariable rule can be laid down as a general proposition defining fraud, and it includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling, and any unfair way by which another is cheated.’”
    48 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A discharge under section 727... of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt... for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud...”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(a) A discharge under section 727 ... of 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.”
    5 later decisions 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.