Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 56 F.3d 750 - Scholes v. Lehmann

Scholes v. Lehmann’s Empirical Analysis

56 F.3d 750 · 1995

Citation profile

293
cited by 293 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
17
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

70 federal appellate · 16 district · 28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 293 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2024 · most notably General Electric Capital Corporation v. Lease Resolution Corporation (1997), 31 Cal. 4th 657 - Mejia v. Reed (2003)

70 federal appellate · 16 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 17 states

12301995200020102020decided

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. § 1129 · 11 U.S.C. § 548 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 28 U.S.C. § 2403 · 28 U.S.C. § 754

Relies on Caplin v. Marine Midland Grace Trust Co. of New York · Local 167 of International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs Stablemen Helpers of America v. United States · Russell v. Acme-Evans Co. · United States v. American Bar Endowment · Texas Pac Ry Co v. Pottorff

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

  1. “The corporations were no more Douglas's evil zombies. Freed from his spell they became entitled to the return of the moneys ... that Douglas had made the corporations divert to unauthorized purposes.”
    22 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “without receiving reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[I]t may seem `only fair' that [the early investor] should be entitled to the profits ... made with his money.... [However, h]e should not be permitted to benefit from a fraud at [later investors'] expense merely because he was not himself to blame for the fraud.”
    8 later decisions 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.