Knoxville Teachers Credit Union v. Parkey’s Empirical Analysis
790 F.2d 490 · 1986
Citation profile
13 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently August 2001 · most notably Phillips Coman v. H Phillips, Ward Manufacturer's Hanover Trust Company v. Ward (1988)
13 federal appellate ·
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. § 523
Relies on First National Bank v. Kimzey · Martin v. Bank of Germantown · New York Mercantile Exchange v. Leist · Northern Trust Co. v. Garman · Carini v. Matera
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) A discharge ... does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt— (2) for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by— (B) use of a statement in writing— (i) that is materially false; (ii) respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition; (iii) on which the creditor to whom the debtor is liable for such money, property, services, or credit reasonably relied; and (iv) that the debtor caused to be made or published with intent to deceive ...”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The present issue for the court is simply whether the bankrupt obtained credit, or a renewal, through the creditor’s reliance on a materially false financial statement containing information apparently sufficient to obtain an accurate picture of the debtor’s financial condition with regard to a reasonable decisional factor in the loan decision, filed by the debtor with the intent to deceive the creditor. The creditor need establish only its reliance in fact, although its claims to reliance cannot be so unreasonable as to defeat a finding of reliance in fact. Given this reliance, the court, with the benefit of hindsight, should not base its decision regarding discharge on whether it would have extended the loan, (emphasis in original).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he reasonableness requirement was intended to incorporate prior case law into the current Bankruptcy Act.... As such, it cannot be said to be a rigorous requirement, but rather is directed at creditors acting in bad faith.”
3 later decisions 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.