Panuska v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably In Re Haggerty (1989), Sholdan v. Dietz (1997)
13 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 522 · 11 U.S.C. § 727
Relies on Hanna v. Plumer · Norwest Bank Nebraska, N.A. v. Tveten · Smiley v. First National Bank of Belleville · Denzer v. Prendergast · Ford v. Poston
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.
“Section 727(a), provides as follows: The court shall grant the debtor a discharge, unless, (2) the debtor, with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor or an officer of the estate charged with custody of property under this title, has transferred, removed, destroyed, mutilated, or concealed, or has permitted to be transferred, removed, destroyed, mutilated, or concealed— (A) property of the debtor, within one year before the date of the filing of petition; or (B) property of the estate, after the date of the filing of the petition; (3) the debtor has concealed, destroyed, mutilated, falsified, or failed to keep or preserve any recorded information, including books, documents, records, and papers, from which the debtor’s financial condition or business transactions might be ascertained, unless such act or failure to act was justified under all of the circumstances of the case; (4) the debtor knowingly and fraudulently, in or in connection with the case— (A) made a false oath or account; [[Image here]] (5) the debtor has failed to explain satisfactorily, before determination of denial of discharge under this paragraph, any loss of assets or deficiency of assets to meet the debtor’s liabilities. * * *”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[e]xtrinsic evidence can be composed [of] further conduct intentionally designed to materially mislead or deceive creditors about the debtor's position; conveyances for less than fair value; or, the continued retention, benefit or use of property allegedly conveyed . . . for inadequate consideration.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. To provide the debtor with property necessary for his physical survival; 2. To protect the dignity and the cultural and religious identity of the debtor; 3. To enable the debtor to rehabilitate himself financially and earn income in the future; 4. To protect the debtor's family from the adverse consequences of impoverishment; 5. To shift the burden of providing the debtor and his family with minimal financial support from society to the debtor’s creditors.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Smith · In Re Larson
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.