Bakst v. Wetzel’s Empirical Analysis
518 F.3d 874 · 2008
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 105 · 11 U.S.C. § 548 · 11 U.S.C. § 550
Relies on In Re Edward J. Waldron, Debtors, Shell Oil Company, Cross-Appellee v. Edward J. Waldron and Elizabeth M. Waldron, His Wife, Cross-Appellants · Dooley v. Weil · Amlong & Amlong, P.A. v. Denny's, Inc. · In Re: Optical Technologies, Inc. · United States v. Howell
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a 'range of possible conclusions the trial judge may reach,' and 'must affirm unless [the reviewing court] find[s] that the ... [trial] court has made a clear error of judgment, or has applied the wrong legal standard.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We have noted that “[t]he equitable doctrine of unclean hands provides that one who has acted in bad faith, resorted to trickery and deception, or been guilty of fraud, injustice or unfairness will appeal in vain to a court of conscience.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In fraudulent transfer actions, there is a distinction between avoiding the transaction and actually recovering the property or the value thereof.”
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.