Sherman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions

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

1. “(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, to the extent that a transfer is avoided under section 544, 545, 547, 548, 549, 553(b), or 724(a) of this title, the trustee may recover, for the benefit of the estate, the property transferred, or, if the court so orders, the value of such property, from— (1) the initial transferee of such transfer or the entity for whose benefit such transfer was made; or (2) any immediate or mediate transferee of such initial transferee. (d) The trustee is entitled to only a single satisfaction under subsection (a) of this section.”

   14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Dobin v. Hill (In Re Hill) · Stoebner v. Opportunity Finance, LLC (In re Polaroid Corp.)

2. “(1) The transfer was to an insider; (2) The debtor retained possession or control of the property transferred after the transfer; (3) The transfer was disclosed or concealed; (4) Before the transfer was made the debt- or had been sued or threatened with suit; (5) The transfer was of substantially all the debtor’s assets; (6) The debtor absconded; (7) The debtor removed or concealed assets; (8) The value of the consideration received by the debtor was reasonably equivalent to the value of the asset transferred; (9) The debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortly after the transfer was made; (10) The transfer occurred shortly before or shortly after a substantial debt was incurred; and (11) The debtor transferred the essential assets of the business to a lienor who transferred the assets to an insider of the debtor.”

   11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Leonard v. Mylex Corp. (In Re Northgate Computer Systems, Inc.) · In Re Hogan

3. ““No one supposes that ‘knowledge of voidability’ means complete understanding of the facts and receipt of a lawyer’s opinion that such a transfer is voidable; some lesser knowledge will do.” Bonded Fin. Servs., 838 F.2d [890, 898 (7th Cir.1988) ] (citations omitted)- Accordingly, we believe that a transferee has knowledge if he “knew facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the property transferred was recoverable.” In re Nordic Village, Inc., 915 F.2d 1049 , 1055 (6th Cir.1990) (quoting Smith, 788 F.2d at 232 n. 2), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30 , 112 S.Ct. 1011 , 117 L.Ed.2d 181 (1992). In this vein, some facts suggest the underlying presence of other facts. If a transferee possesses knowledge of facts that suggest a transfer may be fraudulent, and further inquiry by the transferee would reveal facts sufficient to alert him that the property is recoverable, he cannot sit on his heels, thereby preventing a finding that he has knowledge. In such a situation, the transferee is held to have knowledge of the voidability of the transfer. In re Agricultural Research & Technology Group, 916 F.2d [528, 536 (9th Cir.1990)]; Bonded Fin. Servs., 838 F.2d at 898; In re Goodwin, 115 B.R. 674 , 677 (Bankr. C.D.Cal.1990).”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bressman v. Bressman · Wasserman v. Bressman (In Re Bressman)