Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 831 F.2d 1292 - Francine Klingman v. Melvin E. Levinson

Francine Klingman v. Melvin E. Levinson’s Empirical Analysis

831 F.2d 1292 · 1987

Citation profile

310
cited by 310 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
November 2023
most recently cited

36 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 310 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2023 · most notably Grogan v. Garner (1991), Gray v. Lacke (1989)

36 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions

160019871990200020102020decided

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 Brown III v. Felsen · Benjamin v. United States · Griffin v. United States · Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell · Gregg v. Rahm

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

  1. “1) the issue sought to be precluded must be the same as that involved in the prior action, 2) the issue must have been actually litigated, 3) the determination of the issue must have been essential to the final judgment, and 4) the party against whom estoppel is invoked must be fully represented in the prior action.”
    24 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(a) A discharge ... does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt— (4) for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, ...”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Where a state court determines factual questions using the same standards as the bankruptcy court would use, collateral estoppel should be applied to promote judicial economy by encouraging the parties to present their strongest arguments .... Thus, if the requirements for applying collateral estoppel have been satisfied, then that doctrine should apply to bar relitigation of an issue determined by a state court.”
    8 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.