Franks v. Thomason’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently January 2014 · most notably Spilman v. Harley (1981), Shuler Harold Simpson and Company v. Shuler (1984)
3 federal appellate · 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1681 · 15 U.S.C. § 1681A · 15 U.S.C. § 1681B · 15 U.S.C. § 1681D · 15 U.S.C. § 1681N · 15 U.S.C. § 1681Q · 16 U.S.C. § 825N (§ 315 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 26 U.S.C. § 7203
Relies on Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Montana v. United States · Screws v. United States · Brown III v. Felsen · Spies v. United States
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The court must make clear ... that it does not hold the view expressed by other courts that “there is no room for the application of the technical doctrine of collateral estoppel in determining the nondischargeability of debts described in ... the Bankruptcy Act.” ... The bankruptcy judge must necessarily tailor his application of collateral estoppel to the circumstances of the case before him, consistent with its purposes and the countervailing intent of Congress. The ultimate finding of whether an injury was willful and malicious ... is solely the province of the bankruptcy court; those subordinate factual findings that are necessary to that ultimate determination, that have not been actually and necessarily litigated or that are not discernible from the record, must also be determined by it after hearing all relevant evidence that is presented by the parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . Those facts that were actually litigated and necessary to the decision in the court that rendered the judgment, and that are discernible from the record of the case, should not be reopened absent a compelling reason to avoid injustice. Such facts are obviously much easier to discern from the record in a non-jury case where detailed findings of fact have been made. Where a jury has rendered a general verdict, however, ascertaining their factual conclusions may be more difficult. The bankruptcy judge must necessarily tailor his application of collateral estoppel to the circumstances of the case before him, consistent with its purposes and the countervailing intent of Congress. . . . ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“something more than a one-sided presentation of facts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re McMahon
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.