Rosen v. Bezner’s Empirical Analysis
996 F.2d 1527 · 1993
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 15 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 216 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Wooden v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia (2001), In Re: Milton Keeney, Debtor. Milton W. Keeney v. Mary Jean Smith (2000)
23 federal appellate · 15 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 Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · United States v. Diebold, Inc. · W.F. Development Corp. v. Office of the United States Trustee · Jf Feeser Inc v. Serv-a-Portion Inc · Devers v. Bank of Sheridan, Montana
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 216 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) that the act complained of was done at a time subsequent to one year before the date of the filing of the petition, (2) with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor or an officer of the estate charged with the custody of the property under the Bankruptcy Code, (3) that the transfer was an act of the debtor or his duly .authorized agent, [and] that the act consisted of transferring, removing, destroying or concealing any of the debtor’s property, or permitting these acts to be done.”
26 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a concealment will be found to exist during the year before bankruptcy even if the initial act of concealment took place before this one year period as long as the debtor allowed the property to remain concealed into the critical year.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[B]ecause summary judgment may only be granted where there is no genuine issue of material fact, any purported "factual findings” of the bankruptcy court cannot be "factual findings” as to disputed issues of fact, but rather are conclusions as a matter of law that no genuine issue of material fact exists; such conclusions of law are, of course, subject to plenary review. Thus, when either a district court or an appellate court reviews a grant of summary judgment, the standard of review is plenary; any application of the "clearly erroneous” standard is, in itself, clearly erroneous.”
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.