In the Matter of Pamela A. West, Debtor-Appellee. Appeal of John R. Oltman’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently January 2012 · most notably Barber v. Golden Seed Co. (1997), United States v. Spicer (1995)
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 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 Brown III v. Felsen · 22 657 73274 Bonnett National Bank of Petersburg · Greenberg v. Schools · Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cushing · Howard & Sons, Inc. v. Schmidt (In Re Schmidt)
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[F]irst, a promissory note generally does not discharge the debt for which it is given; but second, if it is shown that the note was given and received as payment or waiver of the original debt and the parties agreed that the note was to substitute a new obligation for the old, the note fully discharges the original debt, and the nondischargeability of the original debt does not affect the dischargeability of the obligation under the note. Matter of West, 22 F.3d 775, 778 (7th Cir.1994).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“a promissory note generally does not discharge the debt for which it is given... [unless] it is shown that the note was given and received as payment or waiver of the original debt and the parties agreed that the note was to substitute a new obligation for the old[.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[e]ven if the obligation arising from ... [the] embezzlement would have been nondischargeable due to its fraudulent nature, no allegations of fraud surrounded the note, and the note substituted a contractual obligation for a tortious one.”
1 later decision 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.