Phillips Coman v. H Phillips’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 174 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably Rembert v. AT & T Universal Card Services, Inc. (1998), XL/Datacomp, Inc. v. Wilson (1994)
2 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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
Relies on Neal v. Clark · First National Bank v. Kimzey · Martin v. Bank of Germantown · New York Mercantile Exchange v. Leist · Northern Trust Co. v. Garman
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 174 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is established that in order to except a debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A) the creditor must prove that the debtor obtained money through a material misrepresentation that at the time the debtor knew was false or made with gross recklessness as to its truth. The creditor must also prove the debtor’s intent to deceive. Moreover, the creditor must prove that it reasonably relied on the false representation and that its reliance was the proximate cause of loss.”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) The obtaining of money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinance of credit by a debtor; (2) use of a false representation pertaining to a past or present fact; (3) knowledge that the representation is false or asserting said representation as fact with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity; (4) an intent to deceive the other party or induce the other party to act based upon said representation; (5) a reasonable reliance by the creditor upon said misrepresentation; and (б) a resultant detriment to said creditor.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) A discharge under section 727 ... 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— (a) false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud, other than a statement respecting the debtor’s or an insider's financial condition; (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 debt- or is liable for such money, property, services, or credit reasonably relied....”
2 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.