Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 83 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Soft Sheen Products, Inc. v. Johnson (In Re Johnson).
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Soft Sheen Products, Inc. v. Johnson (In Re Johnson) Anchor | green | “the denial of discharge is a harsh remedy to be reserved for a truly pernicious debtor.” | 22 |
| 2 | Bay State Milling Co. v. Martin (In Re Martin) | green | “to be satisfactory, the explanation must demonstrate the debtor has exhibited good faith in conducting his affairs and explaining the loss of assets.” | 10 |
| 3 | In Re Martin | green | “section 727(a)(5) is broadly drawn and clearly gives a court broad power to decline to grant a discharge in bankruptcy where the debtor does not adequately explain a shortage, loss, or disappearance of assets.” | 9 |
| 4 | In the Matter of Robert P. Krehl, Debtor-Appellant | green | “a debtor is unlikely to directly testify that his intent was fraudulent, the court may deduce fraudulent intent from all the facts and circumstances of a case” | 9 |
| 5 | In the Matter of Robert P. Krehl, Debtor-Appellant | green | “thus, where the evidence on the intent question is such that two permissible conclusions may rationally be drawn, the bankruptcy court's choice between them will not be viewed as clearly erroneous.” | 9 |
| 6 | Bankr. L. Rep. P 77,736 in Re Leonard Chavin, Debtor | green | “intent to defraud involves a material misrepresentation that you know to be false, or, what amounts to the same thing, an omission that you know will create an erroneous impression.” | 8 |
| 7 | In the Matter Of: Delbert SNYDER, Deanna J. Snyder, and Robert Snyder, Debtors-Appellants | green | “proof of harm is not a required element of a cause of action under section 727.” | 7 |
| 8 | Soft Sheen Products, Inc. v. Johnson (In Re Johnson) | green | “cannot abuse the bankruptcy process by obfuscating the true nature of his affairs and then refusing to provide a credible explanation.” | 5 |
| 9 | Olson v. Potter (In Re Potter) | green | “it must be a good faith explanation of what really happened to the assets in question.” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.