green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.9 score
“statements made with fraudulent intent - -or reckless indifference to the truth ... can be proven by circumstantial evidence”
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Randall v. Atkins (In Re Atkins)
statements made with fraudulent intent - -or reckless indifference to the truth ... can be proven by circumstantial evidence
discussed
Cited "see"
Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. v. United States
See Allustiarte v. United States, 256 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed.Cir.2001) (holding that the Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction to entertain judicial takings claims against federal bankruptcy courts because "[sjuch a determination would require the court to scrutinize the actions of the bankruptcy trustees and courts"), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1042 [ 122 S.Ct. 619 , 151 L.Ed.2d 541 ] (2001); Mora v. United States, 118 Fed.Cl. 713, 716 (2014) ("[T]his court does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of state courts, federal bankruptcy courts, federal district courts, or federal…
discussed
Cited "see"
Milgroom v. United States
See Allustiarte v. United *802 States, 256 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed.Cir.2001) (holding that the Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction to entertain judicial takings claims against federal bankruptcy courts because “[sjuch a determination would require the court to scrutinize the actions of the bankruptcy trustees and courts”), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1042 , 122 S.Ct. 619 , 151 L.Ed.2d 541 (2001); Mora v. United States, 118 Fed.Cl. 713, 716 (2014) (“[Tjhis eoui’t does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of state courts, federal bankruptcy courts, federal district courts…
discussed
Cited "see"
Thompson v. United States
See Allustiarte v. United States, 256 F.3d 1349, 1350 (Fed.Cir.) (“[T]he Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction to review decisions of federal bankruptcy courts.”), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1042 , 122 S.Ct. 619 , 151 L.Ed.2d 541 (2001); see also Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d at 380 (finding that the United States Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of federal district courts).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brace v. United States
See Vereda Ltda. v. United States, 271 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2001); Reynolds, 640 F.2d at 703 (rejecting claim that a decision of the Georgia Supreme Court effectuated a taking, noting that federal courts are not “designed to serve as additional appellate reviewers of state court judgments”); see also Allustiarte v. United States, 256 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1042 , 122 S.Ct. 619 , 151 L.Ed.2d 541 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gulfcoast Workstation Corp. v. Peltz (In Re Bridge Information Systems, Inc.)
FDIC v. Deloitte & Touche, 834 F.Supp. 1129 , 1135 n. 3 (E.D.Ark.1992); see also Bianco v. Erkins (In re Gaston & Snow), 243 F.3d 599, 606-07 (2d Cir.) cert. denied 534 U.S. 1042 , 122 S.Ct. 618 , 151 L.Ed.2d 540 (2001) (noting that bankruptcy courts must apply the forum state’s choice of law principles when the parties’ substantive rights and liabilities under the Code are a function of state law).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ezell
v.
Direct Labor, Inc.
v.
Direct Labor, Inc.
No. 01-525.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 26, 2001.
Ct. App. La., 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.