Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 756 F.2d 1237 - United States v. Chapman

United States v. Chapman’s Empirical Analysis

756 F.2d 1237 · 1985

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
January 2016
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently January 2016

11 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

801985199020002010decided

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 26 U.S.C. § 4401

Relies on Aquilino v. United States · United States v. Rodgers · Mortgageamerica Corporation American National Bank of Austin v. Mortgageamerica Corporation · United States v. Fernon · Spring Branch Independent School District v. Metalab Equipment Co.

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

  1. “"(a) A transfer of real or personal property, a suit, a decree, judgment, or execution, or a bond or other writing is void with respect to a creditor, purchaser, or other interested person if the transfer, suit, decree, judgment, execution, or bond or other writing was intended to (1) delay or hinder any creditor, purchaser, or other interested person from obtaining that to which he is, or may become, entitled; or (2) defraud any creditor, purchaser, or other interested person of that to which he is, or may become, entitled. (b) The title of a purchaser for value is not void under Subsection (a) of this section unless he purchased with notice of (1) the intent of his transferor to delay, hinder, or defraud; or (2) the fraud that voided the title of his trans-feror."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “some doubt that Texas law would support a claim of homestead right in a grantor who fraudulently conveyed the property to another, since the latter holds title — save as to the defrauded creditor — to the property.”), citing Stevens v. Cobern, 109 Tex. 574 , 213 S.W. 925, 926 (1919) (holding that the grantor”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “that to which he is, or may become, entitled.”
    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.