In Re Coughlin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 4 district ·

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

1. “(1) a debt for obtaining money; (2) by use of a statement in writing; (3) that is materially false; (4) respecting the debtor’s financial condition; (5) on which the creditor reasonably relied; and (6) published by the debtor with intent to deceive.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commercial Credit Corp. v. Sawyer (In Re Sawyer) · Massey-Ferguson Credit Corp. v. Archer (In Re Archer)

2. “In this proceeding, section 523(a)(2)(B) required the bank to prove six elements in order to obtain a finding of nondis-chargeability: 1) a debt for obtaining money, 2) by use of a statement in writing, 3) that is materially false, 4) respecting the debtor’s financial condition, 5) on which the creditor reasonably relied, and 6) published by the debtor with intent to deceive. [Citations omitted] It is not seriously disputed that First National has established elements one through four by clear and convincing evidence. The difficult question is whether the bank established intent to deceive and reasonable reliance. Questions concerning intent and reliance are questions of fact, and, thus, the bankruptcy court’s findings on these issues are subject to appellate review under the clearly erroneous standard. Anderson, Clayton & Co. v. Wingfield (In re Wingfield), 15 B.R. 647, 649 (D.Ct.W.D.Okl.1981). We reject Coughlin’s argument that the evidence does not support a finding of intent to deceive. Although a showing of unknowing inaccuracy is not enough to establish intent to deceive, Genesis Leasing Corp. v. Mangham (In re Mangham), 8 B.R. 222, 223 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Ohio 1981), actual knowledge of the falsity of the financial information is not required. Waterbury Community Federal Credit Union v. Magnusson (In re Magnusson), 14 B.R. 662, 669 (Bkrtcy.N.D.N.Y.1981). A creditor can establish intent to deceive by proving reckless indifference to, or reckless disregard of, the accuracy of th”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Citizens National Bank v. Vandergrift (In Re Vandergrift)

3. “A discharge under section 727 .... of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt— for obtaining money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinance of credit, by- 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 obtaining such money, property, services, or credit reasonably relied; and (iv) that the debtor caused to be made or published with intent to deceive.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. First National Bank of Atlanta v. Robinson (In Re Robinson)