Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 826 F.2d 335 - Browning v. Navarro

Browning v. Navarro’s Empirical Analysis

826 F.2d 335 · 1987

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
5
states following
March 2015
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals (1989), Browning v. Navarro (1989)

13 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

2001987199020002010decided

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. § 105 · 11 U.S.C. § 542 · 28 U.S.C. § 2283

Relies on Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. · United States v. Throckmorton · Heiser v. Woodruff · Marshall v. Holmes · Browning v. Navarro

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

  1. “Undoubtedly, since the Bankruptcy Act authorizes a proof of claim based on a judgment, such a proof may be assailed in the bankruptcy court on the ground that the purported judgment is not a judgment because of want of jurisdiction of the court which rendered it over the persons of the parties or the subject matter of the suit, or because it was procured by fraud of a party. But it is quite another matter to say that the bankruptcy court may reexamine the issues determined by the judgment itself.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[The party challenging the prior judgment] must demonstrate that the judgment was obtained as the result of a scheme or collusion that is designed to influence corruptly the proceedings, or to inhibit the ability of an adverse party to fully present his case or defense, and which has the effect of foreclosing to him the opportunity to have a fair and complete trial.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Heiser does not define 'judgment procured by fraud.'”
    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.