Su v. C Su’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 169 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Barboza v. New Form, Inc. (2008), Eskanos & Adler, P.C. v. Leetien (2002)
21 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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. § 523
Relies on Kawaauhau v. Geiger · Tinker v. Colwell · Huntington v. City of New York · Taunt v. General Retirement System of Detroit · In Re: Seymour Markowitz, Debtor. Seymour Markowitz v. Carolyn Campbell
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 169 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“By its very terms, the objective standard disregards the particular debtor’s state of mind and considers whether an objective, reasonable person would have known that the actions in question were substantially certain to injure the creditor. In its application, this standard looks very much like the “reckless disregard” standard used in negligence. That the Bankruptcy Code’s legislative history makes it clear that Congress did not intend § 523(a)(6)’s willful injury requirement to be applied so as to render nondischargeable any debt incurred by reckless behavior, reinforces application of the subjective standard. The subjective standard correctly focuses on the debtor’ state of mind and precludes application of § 523(a)(6)’s nondischarge-ability provision short of the debtor’s actual knowledge that harm to the creditor was substantially certain.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n addition to what a debtor may admit to knowing, the bankruptcy court may consider circumstantial evidence that tends to establish what the debtor must have actually known when taking the injury-producing action.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The subjective standard correctly focuses on the debtor’s state of mind and precludes application of § 523(a)(6)’s nondischargeability provision short of the debtor’s actual knowledge that harm to the creditor was substantially certain.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.