Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 96 F.3d 1279 - Bernard v. Sheaffer

Bernard v. Sheaffer’s Empirical Analysis

96 F.3d 1279 · 1996

Citation profile

71
cited by 71 later decisions
March 2019
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 5 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Retz v. Samson (2010), Fogal Legware of Switzerland, Inc. v. Wills (In Re Wills) (1999)

9 federal appellate · 5 district ·

380199620002010decided

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 Barnhill v. Johnson · Williams v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · Devers v. Bank of Sheridan, Montana · First Beverly Bank v. Adeeb · Smiley v. First National Bank of Belleville

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

  1. “[A] transfer is a disposition of an interest in property. The definition is as broad as possible. Many of the potentially limited words in current law are deleted, and the language is simplified. Under this definition, any transfer of an interest in property is a transfer, including a transfer of possession, custody, or control even if there is no transfer to title, because possession, custody, and control are interests in property.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'Transfer' means every mode, direct or indirect, absolute or conditional, voluntary or involuntary, of disposing of or parting with an asset or an interest in an asset[.]”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Denial of discharge ... need not rest on a finding of intent to defraud . Intent to hinder or delay is sufficient.”
    5 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.