In Re: Donald Hoffend Sr’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2023 · most notably In Re: Luis Fernandez-Rocha, in Re: Kent Miller
1 district ·
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 Bonner v. City of Prichard · Kuntz v. City of Dayton · Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe · Spencer Gifts, Inc. v. Olitsky · Bradley v. J. F. Batte & Sons of Richmond, Inc.
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Creditor] relies upon Strang v. Bradner, 114 U.S. 555 , 5 S.Ct. 1038 , 29 L.Ed. 248 (1885). There, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether two bankrupt debtors, who were vicariously hable under agency law for a debt incurred through the fraud of their co-partner, were precluded from discharging that debt in bankruptcy. See id at 561, 5 S.Ct. at 1041 . Strang distinguished the holding of Neal , where the Court had interpreted fraud to mean actual or positive fraud rather than implied fraud. See Strang, 114 U.S. at 559 , 5 S.Ct. at 1040 (citing Neal, 95 U.S. at 709 , 24 L.Ed. 586 ). Strang held that Neal’s positive fraud requirement was satisfied by the fraud of the debtors’ co-partner. The question before the Court in Strang was whether the debtors, who had been unaware of their co-partner’s fraud, could nonetheless be precluded from discharging the debt in bankruptcy. See Strang, 114 U.S. at 559, 561 , 5 S.Ct. at 1040-41 . The Court held that the co-partner’s fraud, imputed to the debtors, precluded their discharge of the debt. See id. at 561 , 5 S.Ct. at 1041 . [Creditor] argues that the holding of Strang should extend to preclude Villa’s discharge of a claim based on his employees’ fraud, for which Villa may be responsible under § 20(a). 24”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[W]e are mindful of our obligation to construe strictly exceptions to discharge in order to give effect to the fresh start policy of Bankruptcy Code. See In re Walker, 48 F.3d 1161, 1164-65 (11th Cir.1995). Thus, we are bound to a narrow reading of Strang [v. Bradner, 114 U.S. 555 , 5 S.Ct. 1038 , 29 L.Ed. 248 (1885)]. Strang imputed liability for fraud in bankruptcy based on the common law of partnership and agency. See Strang, 114 U.S. at 561 , 5 S.Ct. at 1041 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(a) A discharge under sections 727, 1141, 1228(a), 1228(b), or 1328(b) of this title does not discharge any 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.”
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.