72 Md. App. 620 - Dixon v. Bennett’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
10 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably 93 Md. App. 168 - Fraidin v. Weitzman (1992), 126 Md. App. 294 - Residential Warranty Corp. v. Bancroft Homes Greenspring Valley, Inc. (1999)
10 district · 21 state decisions
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. § 322 · 11 U.S.C. § 343 · 11 U.S.C. § 362 · 11 U.S.C. § 524 · 11 U.S.C. § 541 · 11 U.S.C. § 546 · 11 U.S.C. § 548 · 11 U.S.C. § 704
Relies on Clark v. United States · Bailey Assignee v. Glover et al. · Kaczorowski v. Mayor of Baltimore · Mortgageamerica Corporation American National Bank of Austin v. Mortgageamerica Corporation · Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated September Marc Rich Co Ag v. United States
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Except as provided in subsection (a)(3) of this section [dealing with claims against community property], discharge of a debt of the debtor does not affect the liability of any other entity on, or the property of any other entity for, such debt.” 11 U.S.C. § 524 (e) (1988).”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he rationale supporting the Federal repudiation of the attorney-client privilege under fraudulent circumstances is equally persuasive when applied to the accountant-client privilege. Communication between an accountant and a client in furtherance of fraudulent or unlawful ends in no way serves to promote informed and intelligent financial advice.” Id. at 640 , 531 A.2d at 1328 . In reaching its decision, the court noted that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“To overcome a claim of privilege using the fraud exception, the seeker of the documents does not have to prove that the fraud has actually taken place. What is required is simply a prima facie showing that the advice related to the documents sought has been obtained in furtherance of a fraudulent activity, or the presentation of a reasonable basis for believing that the objective was fraudulent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sears v. Gussin
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.