Hope v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis
48 F.3d 1161 · 1995
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 175 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Geiger v. Kawaauhau (1997), Hagan v. McNallen (1995)
19 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 11 U.S.C. § 523
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Tinker v. Colwell · Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta · Huntington v. City of New York · Cecchini Impulsora Del Territorio Sur Sa v. Cecchini Robustelli Impulsora Del Territorio Sur Sa
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 175 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a showing of an intentional or deliberate act, which is not done merely in reckless disregard of the rights of another.”
22 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] moving party is entitled to summary judgment if the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This court, when interpreting the terms “willfid” and “malicious” in § 523(a)(6), has held that a wrongful act done intentionally, which necessarily produces harm and is without just cause or excuse, may constitute a willful and malicious injury. We rejected the stricter standard that “willful” and “malicious” requires an act with intent to cause injury.”
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.