Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 894 F.2d 815 - Soult v. Maddox

Soult v. Maddox’s Empirical Analysis

894 F.2d 815 · 1990

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
May 2014
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Relationships

Applies 11 U.S.C. § 350 · 11 U.S.C. § 523

Relies on Dow Jones & Company, Inc. v. Stanley Simon · Rosinski v. Boyd · Loudermill v. Cleveland Board of Education · Hughes Alonzo Robinson v. Tommy C. Mann, Trustee · Milando v. Perrone

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

  1. “(b) A case may be reopened in the court in which such case was closed to administer assets, to accord relief to the debtor, or for other cause.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A debtor “may be prevented from [reopening to] amend ... her schedule only if her failure to include a creditor on the original schedule can be shown to have prejudiced ... [the creditor] in some way or to have been part of a scheme of fraud or intentional design.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Dr. Maddox [the creditor] has not lost any meaningful right that he would have enjoyed if he had been properly listed in the first place. The bankruptcy court specifically indicated that if assets from which a dividend could be paid should ever be discovered, Dr. Maddox would be entitled to participate in the dividend. If Dr. Maddox wants to contest dischargeability, he can do that. [Emphasis supplied] See In re Brown, 60 B.R. 983 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Ohio 1986); In re Daniels, 51 B.R. 142 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Ohio 1985).”
    3 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.