In Re Hewlett E. Morris, Jr., A/K/A H. Edward Morris, Debtor-Appellee’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably Ojeda v. Goldberg (2010), Haney v. Copeland (In Re Copeland) (2003)
3 federal appellate ·
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. § 523
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Grogan v. Garner · Field v. Mans · Martin v. Bank of Germantown · McClellan v. Cantrell
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) A discharge under section 727 ... 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[.]”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) A discharge under section 727 ... 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— (B) use of a statement in writing— (i) that is materially false; (ii) respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition; (iii) on which the creditor to whom the debtor is liable for such money, property, services, or credit reasonably relied; and (iv) that the debtor caused to be made or published with intent to deceived]”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“a. whether the debtor/creditor had a business relationship; b. whether the creditor conducted a credit check; c. whether the creditor examined the debtor’s record in meeting his credit card debts; d. whether the creditor had previous dealings with the debtor that produced a relationship of trust; e. whether the debt was incurred for personal or commercial reasons; f. whether there were any red flags that would have alerted an ordinary prudent lender to the possibility that the representations relied upon were not accurate; g. whether a minimal investigation would have revealed the inaccuracy of the debtor’s representation; h. whether the debtor and creditor had a personal relationship; i. the sophistication of the parties; j. whether the creditor or debtor solicited the extension of credit; and k. the length of time of any relationship.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.