Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 239 F.3d 746 - Mm Winkler Associates Bill Morgan and Okee McDonald Bruno Deodati v. Mm Winkler & Associates Bill Morgan and Okee McDonald

Mm Winkler Associates Bill Morgan and Okee McDonald Bruno Deodati v. Mm Winkler & Associates Bill Morgan and Okee McDonald’s Empirical Analysis

239 F.3d 746 · 2001

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
February 2023
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2023 · most notably Ghomeshi v. Sabban (2010), In Re: Donald Hoffend Sr (2001)

10 federal appellate · 2 district ·

240200120102020decided

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 Cohen v. De La Cruz · Toibb v. Radloff · Strang v. Bradner · Luce v. First Equipment Leasing Corp. · BancBoston Mortgage Corp. v. Ledford

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

  1. “A more recent Supreme Court case ... suggests that receipt of benefits is irrelevant to whether innocent debtors may discharge fraud liability. In Cohen v. de la Cruz, the Court held that ... whether the debt arises from fraud is the only consideration material to nondischargeability .... [ Cohen ] indicates that we should not read requirements like receipt of benefits into § 523(a)(2)(A) and that the discharge exceptions protect fraud victims rather than debtors.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The language of the statute includes no 'receipt of benefit' requirement. The statute focuses on the character of the debt, not the culpability of the debtor or whether the debtor benefitted from the fraud.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “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, other than a statement respecting the debtor's or an insider's financial condition.”
    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.