Coen v. Zick’s Empirical Analysis
458 F.2d 326 · 1972
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Houtman v. Mann (1978), St. Laurent v. Ambrose (1993)
21 federal appellate · 2 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Den Haerynck v. Thompson · Greene v. Lane · Barbachano v. Allen · Thibodeau v. Martin
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is measured by the nature of the act, i.e., whether it was one which caused willful and malicious injuries. All liabilities resulting therefrom are nondischargeable.”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[were] liabilities for obtaining money or property by false pretenses or false representations, or for obtaining money or property on credit or obtaining an extension or renewal of credit in reliance upon a [false financial statement.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In the opinion of this court, issues which have been necessarily litigated in the court which entered the judgment are res judicata and may not be re-tried by the court considering the dischargeability of the judgment. It is further the opinion of this court that the whole record of the court entering the judgment should be considered. For example, if the trial judge had specifically found that as a matter of fact and as a matter of law that the acts complained of were “willful and malicious injuries” to person or property and had entered judgment accordingly, this court would be without power to reconsider the same. On the other hand, if such court had not made such a conclusion ... this court may examine such parts of the record of the court entering the judgment as may be necessary to determine whether or not the acts complained of, for which judgment was entered, constitute willful and malicious injuries within the meaning of the statute. Id. at 648 . (Emphasis added.).”
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.