76966 McFarland South Division Credit Union’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably In Re Hewlett E. Morris, Jr., A/K/A H. Edward Morris, Debtor-Appellee (2000), CFC Wireforms, Inc. v. Monroe (In Re Monroe) (2004)
1 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 Grogan v. Garner · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership · Brown III v. Felsen · United States v. Nordic Village, Inc.
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) A discharge under section 727 ... of this title 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.”
8 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— (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 deceived]”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) A discharge under section 727 ... of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt— (19) that — • (A) is for— (i) the violation of any of the Federal securities laws (as that term is defined in section 3(a)(47) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934), any of the State securities laws, or any regulation or order issued under such Federal or State securities laws; or (ii) common law fraud, deceit, or manipulation in connection with the purchase or sale of any security; and (B) results from— (i) any judgment, order, consent order, or decree entered in any Federal or State judicial or administrative proceeding; (ii) any settlement agreement entered into by the debtor; or (iii) any court or administrative order for any damages, fine, penalty, citation, restitutionary payment, disgorgement payment, attorney fee, cost, or other payment owed by the debtor.”
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.