green
Positive treatment
2.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1941 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1941
1983
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
New Jersey Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection v. Trombadore (In Re Trombadore)
See Davison-Paxon Co. v. Caldwell, 115 F.2d 189 (5th Cir.1940), cert. denied, 313 U.S. 564 , 61 S.Ct. 841 , 85 L.Ed. 1523 (1941) (debts created while hopelessly insolvent are dischargeable).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Black
See Davison-Paxon Co. v. Caldwell, 115 F.2d 189 (5th Cir. 1941), cert. den., 313 U.S. 564 , 61 S.Ct. 841 , 85 L.Ed. 1523 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
GM Card v. Cox (In Re Cox)
Compare Household Credit Services, Inc. v. Peterson (In re Peterson), 182 B.R. 877 (Bankr.W.D.Okla.1995) (exclusion of "statement” respecting debtor’s financial condition more narrow than exclusion of "representation”). 6 .Section 17a(2) of the Act excepted from discharge debts of the debtor that "are liabilities for obtaining money or property by false pretenses or false representations, or for obtaining money or property on credit or obtaining an extension or renewal of credit in reliance upon a materially false statement in writing respecting his financial condition made or published …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Karis v. Vasquez
In this regard, the California Supreme Court has explained, relying on Drew , that the “rule” is subject to exception in “special circumstances.” In re Connor, 15 Cal.2d 161, 163 , 99 P.2d 248 (1940), cert. denied, 313 U.S. 542 , 61 S.Ct. 844 , 85 L.Ed. 1510 (1941) (petitioner failed to show special circumstances why he should have been permitted to raise claims piecemeal); see also Ex parte Connor, 16 Cal.2d 701, 703 , 108 P.2d 10 (1940), cert. denied, 313 U.S. 542 , 61 S.Ct. 844 , 85 L.Ed. 1510 (1941) (rule against piecemeal attacks on judgment “admits of some modification under ex…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
First National Bank of Atlanta v. Robinson (In Re Robinson)
See also Davidson-Paxon Co. v. Caldwell, 115 F.2d 189 (5th Cir.1940), cert. denied, 313 U.S. 564 , 61 S.Ct. 841 , 85 L.Ed. 1523 (1941).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Moreno v. Schwartz (In Re Schwartz)
See In re Davis, 11 B.R. 156 (Bkrtcy.D.Vt.1980); see also Davison-Paxon Co. v. Caldwell, 115 F.2d 189 (5th Cir.1941), cert. denied 313 U.S. 564 , 61 S.Ct. 841 , 85 L.Ed. 1523 (1941); In re Wood, 571 F.2d 284 (5th Cir.1978).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
v.
Kepner
v.
Kepner
No. 678.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 14, 1941.
Messrs. Morison R. Waite and Harry H. Byrer, with whom Mr. William A. Eggers was on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. Samuel T. Gaines, with whom Mr..Edward M. Ballard was on the brief, for respondent.
Published
Per Curiam:
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.