The Personal and Business Insurance Agency v. Pfs’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably Stanziale v. Pepper Hamilton LLP (In Re Student Finance Corp.) (2005), OHC Liquidation Trust v. Credit Suisse First Boston (In Re Oakwood Homes Corp.) (2006)
1 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 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 Scholes v. Lehmann · Meridian Bank v. Alten · Rochez Brothers, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation v. Charles R. Rhoades · Hays and Company v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc · Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. R.F. Lafferty & Co.
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) General rule — A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor, whether the creditor’s claim arose before or after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation: (1) with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor of the debtor[.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he fraud of an officer of a corporation is imputed to the corporation when the officer’s fraudulent contact was (1) in the course of his employment, and (2) for the benefit of the corporation. This is true even if the officer’s conduct was unauthorized, effected for his own benefit but clothed with apparent authority of the corporation, or contrary to instructions. The underlying reason is that a corporation can speak and act only through its agents and so must be accountable for any acts committed by one of its agents within his actual or apparent scope of authority and while transacting corporate business.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]f an agent is the sole representative of a principal, then that agent’s fraudulent conduct is imputable to the principal regardless of whether the agent’s conduct was adverse to the principal’s interests. The rationale for this rule is that the sole agent has no one to whom he can impart his knowledge, or from whom he can conceal it, and that the corpora tion must bear the responsibility for allowing an agent to act without accountability.”
1 later decision 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.