Pavy v. Chastant’s Empirical Analysis
873 F.2d 89 · 1989
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Village of San Jose v. McWilliams (2002), In the Matter of Kelly Dennis v. Kelly Dennis and Gulf South Title Corporation
18 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 727
Relies on Devers v. Bank of Sheridan, Montana · Turton v. Jones · Aetna Insurance Co. v. Nazarian (In Re Nazarian) · EFA Acceptance Corp. v. Cadarette
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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the lack or inadequacy of consideration; (2) the family, friendship or close associate relationship between the parties; (3) the retention of possession, benefit or use of the property in question; (4) the financial condition of the party sought to be charged both before and after the transaction in question; (5) the existence or cumulative effect of the pattern or series of transactions or course of conduct after the incurring of debt, onset of financial difficulties, or pen-dency or threat of suits by creditors; and (6) the general chronology of the events and transactions under inquiry.”
31 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“— that the act complained of was done within the one year before the date of the fifing of the petition; — that the act was done with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud a creditor or an officer of the estate charged with custody of property under the Bankruptcy Code; — that the act was that of the debtor or a duly authorized agent of the debtor; — that the act consisted of transferring, removing, destroying or concealing any of the debtor’s property, or permitting any of these acts to be done. Section 727(a)(2) is intended to prevent the discharge of a debtor who attempts to avoid payment to creditors by concealing or otherwise disposing of assets. A debtor will not be denied a discharge under section 727(a)(2) unless it is shown that the act complained of occurred (1) with respect to property of the debtor, within one year before the date of the fifing of the bankruptcy petition, or (2) with respect to property of the estate, after the fifing of the petition.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) a transfer [or concealment] of property; (2) belonging to the debtor; (3) within one year of the filing of the petition; [and] (4) with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor or officer of the estate.”
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.