Constance Mercer At&t Universal Card Services v. Constance P Mercer’s Empirical Analysis
246 F.3d 391 · 2001
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 173 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Williams v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 520 (2003), In the Matter of Guilford Joseph Acosta v. Guilford Joseph Acosta
36 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 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 Grogan v. Garner · Field v. Mans · Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton · Williams v. United States · Spencer Gifts, Inc. v. Olitsky
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 173 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) A discharge under § 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[.]”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“indicating such reliance is unwarranted.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Even assuming UCS, a sophisticated lender with considerable resources, could have conducted the type investigation envisioned by the bankruptcy court, its failure to do so does not .per se preclude finding it was justified in relying on Mercer’s card-use representations of intent to pay, because the information it obtained prior to card-issuance appears, based on the earlier-discussed evidence, not to have raised “red flags” requiring further investigation. Of course, justifiable reliance is a question of fact. See Coston v. Bank of Malvern (In re Coston), 991 F.2d 257, 260 (5th Cir.1993) (en banc) (pre-Field; reasonable reliance question of fact). Because the bankruptcy court applied an incorrect legal standard in finding no justifiable reliance, on remand it must make that determination, under the correct legal standard. For justifiable reliance, the focus should be on whether UCS, based on its credit screening and its relationship with Mercer during her brief card-use, had reason to believe she would not carry out her representation, through card-use, of intent to pay. Relevant to that determination are the circumstances under which the representation was made, including the fact that it was made for the purpose of inducing UCS to act in reliance upon it, and the form and manner in which it was expressed. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 544 cmt. a. And, facts pertinent to that inquiry include, but are not limited to: (1) UCS’ decision to offer the pre-approved card, ba”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.