In Re: Donald Nangle, Debtor, Patricia A. Siemer v. Donald Nangle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 3 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[C]onduct more culpable than that which is in reckless disregard of creditors’ economic interests and expectancies, as distinguished from mere legal rights. Moreover, knowledge that legal rights are being violated is insufficient to establish malice, absent some additional aggravated circumstances. The conduct must be targeted at the creditor in the sense that the conduct is certain or almost certain to cause financial harm.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Liddell v. Peckham (In Re Peckham) · Chapman v. Fuget (In Re Fuget)

2. “previous litigation of a particular issue has reached such a stage that a court sees no really good reason for permitting it to be litigated again.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. J.Y.C.C. v. Doe Run Resources, Corp. · J.Y.C.C. v. Doe Run Resources, Corp.

3. “The key question, we believe, is whether the contempt order established that Mr. Nangle’s failure to comply with a court order constituted “willful and malicious” conduct. We believe that it did and therefore that the debt arising from it is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Suarez v. Barrett (In Re Suarez)