Case Citator › In re Van Horne

In re Van Horne

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

Overruled in part
Court
Eighth Circuit
Citation
823 F.2d 1285
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
59 of 59
Citing cases (total)
59
Treatment dates
1991
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. In re Van Horne is overruled in part: Grogan v. Garner displaced its requirement of clear and convincing proof for exceptions to bankruptcy discharge. All 59 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

Later citing opinions report that change while continuing to apply Van Horne’s principles concerning fraudulent concealment and proof of intent. The confirmed treatment is listed below.

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.

59 later cases cite In re Van Horne; 59 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. 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 In re Van Horne?

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

Overruled in part

  • The Supreme Court displaced Van Horne’s clear-and-convincing proof requirement, holding that a preponderance of the evidence governs the discharge exceptions in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a).

    Grogan v. Garner · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We are unpersuaded by the argument that the clear-and-convincing standard is required to effectuate the “fresh start” policy of the Bankruptcy Code. ... For these reasons, we hold that the standard of proof for the dischargeability exceptions in 11 U. S. C. § 523(a) is the ordinary preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. ... "This Circuit concluded that the stricter standard was appropriate since the general policy of bankruptcy is to provide the debtor with the opportunity for a fresh start and the courts should, thereby, construe provisions of the Bankruptcy Code favoring the debtor broadly. Matter of Van Home, 823 F. 2d [1285, 1287 (CA8 1987)].”
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads In re Van Horne 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