241 Ga. App. 633 - Wolfork v. Tackett’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
2 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably 245 Ga. App. 60 - Nelson & Hill, P.A. v. Wood (2000), Wolfork v. Tackett (2001)
2 district · 16 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
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 1306 · 11 U.S.C. § 350 · 11 U.S.C. § 541 · 18 U.S.C. § 152
Relies on 212 Ga. App. 454 - Southmark Corp. v. Trotter, Smith & Jacobs · 223 Ga. App. 650 - Johnson v. Trust Co. Bank · Fleet v. United States Consumer Council, Inc. (In Re Fleet) · 235 Ga. App. 444 - Clark v. Perino · 225 Ga. App. 122 - Moore v. Bank of Fitzgerald
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[d]istinguishable are those cases where the debtor moved to reopen the bankruptcy proceeding to amend the asset schedule to include the tort claim, for then the proceeds of the claim would have inured to the benefit of the creditors, and the inconsistency of declaring that no such asset existed would have been cured through amendment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[JJudicial estoppel is [applied] to prevent the use of intentional self-contradiction as a means of obtaining unfair advantage in a forum provided for suitors seeking justice. It is directed against those who would attempt to manipulate the court system through the calculated assertion of divergent sworn positions in judicial proceedings. Finally, it can only be applied to preclude a party from asserting a position in a judicial proceeding which is inconsistent with a position previously successfully asserted by it in a prior proceeding.”
1 later decision 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.