In Re Aaron H. Watman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “At the time that these petitions were filed, Watman was the sole officer and director of Childrens Dental. At the time of filing, Childrens Dental had cash in bank accounts in the amount of approximately $30,000 and accounts receivable of about $69,000. These assets were disclosed in the bankruptcy schedules and turned over to the bankruptcy trustee. On or about March 25, 1999, Watman informed Lowell Doctors Park, from whom Childrens Dental was renting its office space, that Childrens Dental would be terminating its occupancy of the premises. From March 24, 1999 through March 31, 1999, Watman operated a dental practice under his own name at the office space that had been occupied by Childrens Dental at 75 Arcand Drive, in Lowell, Massachusetts (75 Arcand Drive location), using the same furniture and equipment that Childrens Dental had used. Watman offered the employees of Childrens Dental positions in his practice on the same terms as Childrens Dental was employing them. Then, on March 31, 1999, Lowell Dentistry for Children, P.C. ("Lowell Dentistry") was incorporated and began operations out of the same 75 Arcand Drive location. The corporate documentation to form Lowell Dentistry had been prepared in January 1999 by the law firm of Devine, Millimet & Branch. Childrens Dental paid the cost of these services from a retainer that it had paid to that firm. Watman became, and continues to be, the president, sole shareholder and director of Lowell Dentistry. Most of Childrens Den”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Patriot Grp. v. Fustolo (In re Fustolo)

2. “the bankruptcy court should have determined whether 'assets such as ... employees, patient files, office space, goodwill and overall going concern value were (a) properly considered property ... such that they would have been included in the estate for the benefit of creditors; and (b) if so, whether they were transferred [to the debtor or a new entity]. Id. (citing Watman I , 301 F.3d at 11-12 (footnote omitted) ). As this Court observed in Butler v. Candlewood Road Partners, LLC (In re Raymond) , 529 B.R. 455 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2015), "[t]he doctrines of veil piercing, reverse veil piercing and alter ego are interrelated and litigants often use the terms interchangeably.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Patriot Grp. v. Fustolo (In re Fustolo)

3. “(1) the lack or inadequacy of consideration; (2) the family, friendship or close associate relationship between the parties; (3) the retention of possession, benefit or use of the property in question; (4) the financial condition of the party sought to be charged both before and after the transaction in question; (5) the existence or cumulative effect of the pattern or series of transactions or course of conduct after the incurring of debt, onset of financial difficulties, or pen-dency or threat of suits by creditors; and (6) the general chronology of the events and transactions under inquiry.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Emerging Vision, Inc. v. Sundstrom (In Re Sundstrom)