Santa Fe Medical Services, Inc. v. Segal’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently December 2019 · most notably T I Federal Credit Union v. DelBonis (1995), Idahoan Fresh v. Advantage Produce, Inc. (1998)
21 federal appellate · 5 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 · 20 U.S.C. § 1078 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 158 · 42 U.S.C. § 254O · 42 U.S.C. § 294t
Relies on Grogan v. Garner · United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. · Local Loan Co. v. Hunt · Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz · Mansell v. Mansell
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although limited, the legislative history of section 523(a)(8) teaches that the exclusion of educational loans from the discharge provisions was designed to remedy abuses of the educational loan system by restricting the ability of a student to discharge an educational loan by filing for bankruptcy shortly after graduation, and to safeguard the financial integrity of educational loan programs. See, e.g., 124 Cong.Rec. 1791—98 (1978); [In re] Pelkowski, 990 F.2d [737,] 743 [ (3rd Cir.1993) ]. By enacting section 523(a)(8), Congress sought principally to protect government entities and nonprofit institutions of higher education-— places which lend money or guarantee loans to individuals for educational purposes — from bankruptcy discharge. Because such loans, are not based upon a borrower’s proven credit-worthiness, and because they serve a purpose which Congress sought to encourage, section 523(a)(8) protects the lender when a borrower, who often would not qualify under traditional underwriting standards, files a chapter 7 bankruptcy. See In re Merchant, 958 F.2d [738,] 740 [ (6th Cir.1992) ]. In its continuing effort to prevent such abuses and to protect the solvency of educational loan programs, Congress passed a series of amendments to section 523(a)(8) which extended its reach from educational leans to educational benefits. [I]n light of what we have determined to be the intended purpose of section 523(a)(8), it is also significant that whether or not [the lender 4 ] is ul”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(8) for an educational benefit overpayment or loan made, insured, or guaranteed by a governmental unit, or made under any program funded in whole or in part by a governmental unit or nonprofit institution, or for an obligation to repay funds received as an educational benefit, scholarship, or stipend....”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“except in the 'rare cases [in which] the literal application of a statute will produce a result demonstrably at odds with the intentions of its drafters.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hayes v. Harvey · In Re Renshaw
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.