green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
11.4 score
“we hold that appellants' recordation of the deed which they knew was false for the purpose of obtaining an extension of credit on the basis of an asset that they did not own was a false statement of financial condition within the meaning of 11 u.s.c. 32 (c)(3).”
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 43 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Medley v. Ellis (In Re Medley)
we hold that appellants' recordation of the deed which they knew was false for the purpose of obtaining an extension of credit on the basis of an asset that they did not own was a false statement of financial condition within the meaning of 11 u.s.c. 32 (c)(3).
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
New York Life Insurance v. Deshotel
privity is nothing more than a legal conclusion that the relationship between the one who is a party on the record and the non-party is sufficiently close to afford application of the principle of preclusion.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Security Bank & Trust Co. v. United States
Id. at 95 (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
Carey v. Sub Sea International, Inc.
See Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas International Airlines, Inc., 546 F.2d 84, 89-90 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. 117 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977); Truck Treads, Inc. v. Armstrong Rubber Company, 129 F.R.D. 143, 147-48 (W.D.Tex.1988); 17C Charles A. Wright, Arthur R.
discussed
Cited "see"
Legend Airlines, Inc. v. City of Fort Worth
See Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas Int'l Airlines, Inc., 546 F.2d 84, 103 (5 th Cir.) ("Southwest Airlines Co. has a federally declared right to the continued use of and access to Love Field, so long as Love Field remains open.”), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. 117 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977); City of Dallas v. Southwest Airlines Co., 371 F.Supp. 1015, 1034-35 (N.D.Tex.1973) (same), aff’d, 494 F.2d 773 (5 th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1079 , 95 S.Ct. 668 , 42 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974). . 49 U.S.C.A. § 41713 (b)(1) (West Supp. 1999). .
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Fraser
See Southwest Airlines v. Texas, 546 F.2d 84, 90 (5th Cir.1977), reh’g denied, 550 F.2d 42 (1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. .117, 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977); see also Nowling, 734 F.Supp. at 738 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Thomas v. Allstate Insurance
See Meza v. General Battery Corporation, 908 F.2d 1262 (5th Cir.1990), citing Howell Hydrocarbons, Inc. v. Adams, 897 F.2d 183, 188 (5th Cir.1990), and Southwest Airlines v. Texas International Airlines, 546 F.2d 84, 95 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. 117 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
Keith v. Volpe
See Nowling v. Aero Services Int’l Inc., 734 F.Supp. 733, 739 (E.D.La.1990) (citing Southwest Airlines v. Texas Int’l Airlines, Inc., 546 F.2d 84, 93 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. 117 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977)).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Brooks
See State v. Benson, 198 Neb. 14 , 251 N.W.2d 659 (1977) (reasonably founded suspicion to stop vehicle cannot be based solely on receipt by stopping officer of radio dispatch to stop described vehicle without any proof of factual foundation for relayed message), cert. denied 434 U.S. 833 , 98 S. Ct. 117 , 54 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Santopadre v. Pelican Homestead & Savings Ass'n
(2×)
See Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas Int’l Airlines, 546 F.2d 84, 94 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. 117 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977). “ ‘If state courts could eradicate the force and effect of federal court judgments through supervening interpretations of the state law of res judica-ta, federal courts would not be a reliable forum for final adjudication of ... claims.’ ” Id. (quoting Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710, 716 (5th Cir.1975)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lorraine Aucoin, Wife Of/and John v. Santopadre, Sr. v. Pelican Homestead & Savings Association, John v. Santopadre, Sr. v. Pelican Homestead & Savings Association
(2×)
See Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas Int'l Airlines, 546 F.2d 84, 94 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. 117 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977). " 'If state courts could eradicate the force and effect of federal court judgments through supervening interpretations of the state law of res judicata, federal courts would not be a reliable forum for final adjudication of ... claims.' " Id. (quoting Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710, 716 (5th Cir.1975)). 31 Pursuant to the All Writs Statute, the district court enjoined the Santopadres' state action.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Deborah M. Cox, Debtor. Deborah M. Cox v. Paul Lansdowne, Trustee
(2×)
See Tenn v. First Hawaiian Bank, 549 F.2d 1356, 1357 (9th Cir.) (in applying the gross abuse of discretion standard in discharge cases, “[fjindings of fact will not be overturned unless found to be clearly erroneous.”), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. 117 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977); Hunt v. National Broadcasting Company, Inc., 872 F.2d 289, 292 (9th Cir.1989) (in the context of preliminary injunctions, “the court abuses its discretion if it did not apply the correct legal standard ..., or if it misapprehended the underlying substantive law.”).
cited
Cited "see"
Amalgamated Sugar Co. v. NL Industries, Inc.
See Southwest Airlines v. Texas Int’l Airlines, 646 F.2d 84 , 91 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. 117 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
The Amalgamated Sugar Company, Llc v. Nl Industries, Inc.
See Southwest Airlines v. Texas Int'l Airlines, 546 F.2d 84, 91 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. 117 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977). 22 The exception in Sec. 2283 applies when the state court proceeding would otherwise be barred by res judicata.
discussed
Cited "see"
Exxon Corporation v. Chick Kam Choo
(2×)
See Southwest Airlines [v. Texas Int'l Airlines, 546 F.2d 84 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. 117 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977) ] at 89-90, wherein the ancillary jurisdiction to support injunctive relief was supported by earlier action in which the district court properly asserted federal question jurisdiction. 6 Appellant's brief at 10 (emphasis in original).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kerr-Mcgee Chemical Corporation v. Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, Defendant
See Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas Int'l Airlines, Inc., 546 F.2d 84 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. 117 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977); Doe v. Ceci, 517 F.2d 1203, 1204-05 (7th Cir. 1975); Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975); Berman v. Denver Tramway Corp., 197 F.2d 946 (10th Cir.1952).
discussed
Cited "see"
Secretary of Labor v. Frank E. Fitzsimmons, David Dutchak, and Secretary of Labor, Intervening v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Etc., Chester Sullivan, and Secretary of Labor, Intervening v. Estate of Frank E. Fitzsimmons
See Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas Int'l Airlines, Inc., 546 F.2d 84, 95 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. 117 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977). 9 12 In this case, the trial court found that there was an identity of the cause of action between the Secretary of Labor in Donovan and the private plaintiffs in Sullivan and Dutchak since their respective claims were based upon the same operative facts (trustees' violations of their fiduciary duties to the funds in asset management transactions) and alleged statutory violations (Sec. 302 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.
discussed
Cited "see"
Secretary of Labor v. Fitzsimmons
See Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas Int’l Airlines, Inc., 546 F.2d 84, 95 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. 117 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977). 9 In this case, the trial court found that there was an identity of the cause of action between the Secretary of Labor in Donovan and the private plaintiffs in Sullivan and Dutchak since their respective claims were based upon the same operative facts (trustees’ violations of their fiduciary duties to the funds in asset management transactions) and alleged statutory violations (§ 302 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 186 an…
discussed
Cited "see"
Frederick L. Kunzelman, Cross-Appellee v. Gervase Thompson, Richard Giese and Juneau County, Wisconsin, Defendants- Cross-Appellants
To be in privity the parties must be “so closely aligned that they represent the same legal interest.” Id. at 315 ; see Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas Int’l Airlines, Inc., 546 F.2d 84, 95 (5th Cir.1977), certiorari denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. 117 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Gerald Balbirer, Norman Brainin v. Jack Austin, B.J. Apparel Corporation v. Jack Austin
See Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas International Airlines, 546 F.2d 84, 95 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. 117 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977); Drier v. Tarpon Oil Co., 522 F.2d 199, 200 (5th Cir.1975) (per curiam); As- tron Industrial Associates, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 405 F.2d 958, 961 (5th Cir.1968). 2 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Donovan v. Estate of Fitzsimmons
See Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas Int’l Airlines, Inc., 546 F.2d 84, 95 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. 117 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977). 7 In this case, the district court found that there was an identity of the cause of action between the Secretary of Labor in Donovan and the private plaintiffs in Sullivan and Dutchak since their claims were based upon the same operative facts and alleged statutory violations.
discussed
Cited "see"
Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of Labor v. Estate of Frank E. Fitzsimmons, David Dutchak, Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of Labor, Intervening v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chester J. Sullivan, Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of Labor, Intervening v. Estate of Frank E. Fitzsimmons
See Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas Int'l Airlines, Inc., 546 F.2d 84, 95 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. 117 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977). 7 94 In this case, the district court found that there was an identity of the cause of action between the Secretary of Labor in Donovan and the private plaintiffs in Sullivan and Dutchak since their claims were based upon the same operative facts and alleged statutory violations.
discussed
Cited "see"
Anaconda-Ericsson Inc. v. Hessen
See Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas International Airlines, Inc., 546 F.2d 84, 95 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. 117 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977); Pan American Match, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 454 F.2d 871, 874 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 892 , 93 S.Ct. 113 , 34 L.Ed.2d 149 (1972); Astron Industrial Assoc’s v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 405 F.2d 958, 961 (5th Cir.1968).
discussed
Cited "see"
12 Collier bankr.cas.2d 899, Bankr. L. Rep. P 70,345 in Re Teltronics Services, Inc., Debtor. Anaconda-Ericsson Inc., as Successor by Merger to Lm Ericsson Telecommunications, Inc. v. Jules J. Hessen, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Teltronics Services, Inc., Michael M. Rand and Gregory T. Frese, Teltronics Services, Inc., and Edward M. Beagan v. Anaconda-Ericsson Inc., Lm Ericsson Telephone Company, and Ericsson Telecomm, Inc.
See Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas International Airlines, Inc., 546 F.2d 84, 95 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. 117 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977); Pan American Match, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 454 F.2d 871, 874 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 892 , 93 S.Ct. 113 , 34 L.Ed.2d 149 (1972); Astron Industrial Assoc's v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 405 F.2d 958, 961 (5th Cir.1968).
discussed
Cited "see"
Delta Air Lines, Inc., Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. McCoy Restaurants, Inc.
See Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas International Airlines, Inc., 546 F.2d 84, 100, 102 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. 117 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977); Aerojet-General Corp., 511 F.2d at 719 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Howard T. Winter, United States of America v. Melvin Goldenberg, United States of America v. Elliot Paul Price, United States of America v. James Demetri, United States of America v. Charles Demetri, United States of America v. James Martorano
See United States v. Creamer, 555 F.2d 612, 617-18 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 833 , 98 S.Ct. 118 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Winter
See United States v. Creamer, 555 F.2d 612, 617-18 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 833 , 98 S.Ct. 118 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977).
cited
Cited "see"
Mavis Malvina Vaughn v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
See Bonsukan v. INS, 554 F.2d 2, 4 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 833 , 98 S.Ct. 118 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
Peterson v. Sorlien
(2×)
See Jackson v. Associated Hospital Service, 414 F.Supp. 315 (E.D.Pa.1976), aff’d, 549 F.2d 795 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. 117 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977); Rankin v. Howard, 457 F.Supp. 70, 74-75 (D.Ariz. 1978); cf. Mandelkorn v. Patrick, 359 F.Supp. 692, 697 (D.D.C.1973).
discussed
Cited "see"
Consumers Union of the United States, Inc. And Public Citizen's Health Research Group v. Consumer Product Safety Commission
See Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas Int’l Airlines, 546 F.2d 84, 91-101 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. 117 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977); Restatement (Second), of Judgments, § 85, comment d at 61-62 (Tent.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Wilson Arroyo-Angulo, Hugo Gomez, Jaime Rayo-Montano and Guillermo Moreno
(2×)
These comments did not amount to the government’s improper vouching for its accomplice witnesses but simply constituted permissible argument to the effect that these witnesses, whose veracity and credibility had been fiercely attacked by defense counsel, had no motive to testify falsely, United States v. Ricco, supra at 274; accord, United States v. Araujo, supra; United States v. Aloi, supra; United States v. Isaacs, 493 F.2d 1124, 1165 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 976 , 94 S.Ct. 3183 , 41 L.Ed.2d 1146 (1974); see United States v. Creamer, 555 F.2d 612, 617-18 (7th Cir.), cert. denied…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Sdds, Inc., a South Dakota Corporation
See, e.g., Southwest Airlines Co. *1041 v. Texas Int’l Airlines, 546 F.2d 84, 91 (5th Cir.1977) (“few public interests have a higher claim upon the discretion of a federal chancellor than the avoidance of needless friction with state policies” (analyzing abstention doctrine and Anti-Injunction Act) (quoting Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 500 , 61 S.Ct. 643, 645 , 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941))), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. 117 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977); but see United States v. Rural Elec.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States ex rel. Everette v. Roth
See also United States v. Creamer, 555 F.2d 612, 616-17 (7th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 833 , 98 S.Ct. 118 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Othar Russell v. Sunamerica Securities, Inc.
Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction § 4449, at 418-19 (1981); see also Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas Int’l Airlines, Inc., 546 F.2d 84, 95 (5th Cir.) (privity is nothing more than a “legal conclusion that the relationship between the one who is a party on the record and the non-party is sufficiently close to afford application of the principle of preclusion”) (citation omitted), ce rt. denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. 117 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977); Bruszewski v. United States, 181 F.2d 419, 423 (3rd Cir.) (Goodrich, J., concurring) (“Privity states no reason for includi…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Russell v. SunAmerica Securities, Inc.
Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction § 4449, at 418–19 (1981); see also Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas Int'l Airlines, Inc., 546 F.2d 84, 95 (5th Cir.) (privity is nothing more than a "legal conclusion that the relationship between the one who is a party on the record and the non-party is sufficiently close to afford application of the principle of preclusion") (citation omitted), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. 117 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977); Bruszewski v. United States, 181 F.2d 419, 423 (3rd Cir.) (Goodrich, J., concurring) ("Privity states no reason for including or e…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Howell Hydrocarbons, Inc. v. John Adams
See also Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas International Airlines, 546 F.2d 84 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. 117 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
James A. LATHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
Benson & Ford, Inc. v. Wanda Petroleum, 833 F.2d 1172 (5th Cir.1987); see also Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas International Airlines, 546 F.2d 84 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. 117 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Beerbohm
(2×)
Compare Brewer v. Wolff, 529 F.2d 787 (8th Cir. 1976), and State v. Benson, 198 Neb. 14 , 251 N.W.2d 659 (1977), cert. denied 434 U.S. 833 , 98 S. Ct. 117 , 54 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Marine Power & Equipment Co. v. United States
Under this reasoning, courts have held that a party that fails to intervene in an action directly challenging its interests may be barred from bringing a later collateral attack, see Society Hill Civic Association v. Harris, 632 F.2d 1045, 1052 (3d Cir.1980); see also Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas International Airlines, 546 F.2d 84, 102 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. 117 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977); Expert Electric, Inc. v. Levine, 554 F.2d 1227, 1233-34 (2d Cir.) cert. denied, 434 U.S. 903 , 98 S.Ct. 300 , 54 L.Ed.2d 190 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Walls
See e.g., U.S. v. Creamer, 555 F.2d 612, 615 (7th Cir.1977) cert. denied 434 U.S. 833 , 98 S.Ct. 118 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977); U.S. v. Grunsfeld, 558 F.2d 1231, 1235 (6th Cir.1977) ce rt. denied 434 U.S. 872 , 98 S.Ct. 219 , 54 L.Ed.2d 152 (1977) (collecting cases).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Seven Elves, Incorporated v. Jack S. Eskenazi
See also Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas International Airlines, 546 F.2d 84 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. 117 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977) (res judicata effect of prior case brought under federal question jurisdiction with pendent state claims governed by federal law in subsequent injunction action treated as “supplemental or ancillary” to first action for jurisdiction purposes).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Tenn
v.
First Hawaiian Bank
v.
First Hawaiian Bank
No. 76-1772.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 3, 1977.
Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (1) · E.D. Louisiana (1)
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.