Case Citator › Grogan v. Garner

Grogan v. Garner

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courtsin review
395 of 397 flagged citations read · 99.5%
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
498 U.S. 279
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
395 of 397
Citing cases (total)
5,972
Treatment dates
1991
Limited by some courts · in review
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Grogan v. Garner is still in review. After 395 of 397 flagged citations were read, two citing courts' adverse treatments are listed below.
More on how this was screened

A Colorado bankruptcy court limited Grogan's broad preponderance language for claims under § 523(a)(6), and a Florida bankruptcy court held that Grogan did not apply retroactively to the facts before it. The text of two citing opinions could not be retrieved, so they remain unread.

The treatments below are confirmed; unread citations could still change the overall status.
Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

5,972 later cases cite Grogan v. Garner; 397 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading; the progress bar above tracks how many have been read so far. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Grogan v. Garner?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The court kept a clear-and-convincing burden for § 523(a)(6) claims despite Grogan's broad language favoring preponderance.

    Tague & Beem, P.C. v. Tague (In re Tague) · United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado · filed

    The Court concludes that the adoption of a preponderance standard under Section 523(a)(6) would be inconsistent with Gro-gan’s logic and rationale, notwithstanding the opinion’s all-encompassing language.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court held that Grogan did not apply retroactively to the facts before it.

    Sjostedt v. Salmon (In re Salmon) · United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida · filed

    This Court does not consider Grogan v. Garner, 111 S.Ct. 654, to be retroactive, at least not to the facts in this case.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Grogan v. Garner and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace