Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 584 F.2d 326 - Gough v. Titus

Gough v. Titus’s Empirical Analysis

584 F.2d 326 · 1978

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
2
states following
November 2015
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably Rubin Usn v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co M (1981), Acequia Inc. v. Clinton (1994)

15 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

36019781980199020002010decided

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

Relies on Thompson v. Magnolia Petroleum Co. · Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad · Taubel-Scott-Kitzmiller Co. v. Fox · Taubel-Scott-Kitzmiller Co. v. Fox · Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Forty-One Thirty-Six Wilcox Bldg. Corp.

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

  1. “In order to void transfers as being fraudulent, it is only necessary to find either there was no consideration given and the Debtor was thereby rendered insolvent, or that there was actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors. (Emphasis in original.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) that there ... [is] such unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individual no longer exist and (2) that if the acts are treated as those of the corporation alone, an inequitable result will follow.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “reasonably equivalent value,” the courts held that “[t]ransfers made to benefit third parties are not made for ‘fair’ consideration.”
    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.