Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 729 F.3d 280 - Klein v. Weidner

Klein v. Weidner’s Empirical Analysis

729 F.3d 280 · 2013

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
2
states following
April 2022
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 11 U.S.C. § 362 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)

Relies on 318 Pa. Super. 90 - Delahanty v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A. · Farrell v. Planters Lifesavers Co. · Hoy v. Angelone · Orson, Inc. v. Miramax Film Corp. · Moody v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc.

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

  1. “The UFTA does not provide explicitly for the award of attorney's fees or punitive damages in an action under the [A]ct. However, its basic remedial provision, after enumerating various remedies, states that a creditor may obtain "any other relief the circumstances may require." This invites courts to consider themselves empowered to award attorney's fees, punitive damages, or both. Courts in some states have accepted this invitation; courts in other states have declined it.... The Study Committee considered whether the 2014 amendments should include a uniform provision on award of attorney's fees, and in response to a later suggestion the Drafting Committee reconsidered that issue as to both attorney's fees and punitive damages. Both committees decided not to pursue such a change. Neither committee gave extended consideration to the substance of the issue, i.e., whether and in what circumstances award of attorney's fees or punitive damages is appropriate. Rather, the decision not to pursue the matter was based on the perception that it would be pointless to do so because there would be little chance that a provision on the matter would be enacted uniformly whatever it said.... Hence the Drafting Committee left it to the individual states to address the availability of attorney's fees and punitive damages more specifically than does the official text, if they choose to do so. In drafting uniform acts involving issues on which states are apt to take differing approaches, it is ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “principles of equity and rules of civil procedure could simply mean that any relief granted must comply with the rules and procedures implicated by the specific kind of relief at issue. For example, a creditor seeking an injunction would be required to meet the otherwise generally applicable requirements for this form of equitable relief (e.g., not have”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “A transfer made ... by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor, whether the creditor's claim arose before or after the transfer was made ... if the debtor made the transfer ... with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor of the debtor[J”
    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.