Case Citator › In re Jordan

In re Jordan

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

Overruled in part
Court
Fifth Circuit
Citation
927 F.2d 221
Decided
Confirmed treatments
3
Flagged citations read
34 of 34
Citing cases (total)
34
Treatment dates
1992–1996
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. In re Jordan was overruled in part on the standard of review for reasonable reliance under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B). The Fifth Circuit held en banc that reasonable reliance is a factual question reviewed for clear error.
More on how this was screened

The Sixth Circuit had rejected Jordan's contrary rule, and a California bankruptcy court rejected its attorney fee result under Ninth Circuit law. All 34 flagged citations have been read; the 3 confirmed treatments are listed below. Jordan's other holdings were not displaced by the en banc decision.

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.

34 later cases cite In re Jordan; 34 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 Jordan?

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 Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, overruled Jordan's rule that reasonable reliance is a legal conclusion reviewed anew on appeal.

    In re Coston · Fifth Circuit · filed

    We have taken this case en banc for the sole purpose of deciding whether the “reasonableness” of a creditor’s reliance under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B) is an issue of law subject to de novo review on appeal or a question of fact to be reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Today we hold that, for purposes of section 523(a)(2)(B), the reasonableness of a creditor’s reliance is a question of fact, which is reviewable only for clear error. In so doing, we overrule our opinion in In re Jordan, 927 F.2d 221 (5th Cir.1991), to the extent it held that reasonableness of reliance is a conclusion of law.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Declined to follow

  • The Sixth Circuit declined to follow Jordan's rule that reasonable reliance is a legal conclusion subject to de novo review.

    Bank One v. Woolum · Sixth Circuit · filed

    We decline to follow the holding of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Matter of Jordan, 927 F.2d 221, 225 (1991), where that court found that the reasonableness of reliance was a conclusion of law subject to de novo review.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • A California bankruptcy court rejected Jordan's allowance of contractual attorney fees in a dischargeability action, following the Ninth Circuit's rule instead.

    Sunclipse, Inc. v. Butcher (In re Butcher) · Bankr. C.D. Cal. · filed

    Although Plaintiff cites a variety of cases from other circuits that reach a different result, those cases are not persuasive here given the view of the Ninth Circuit on this issue. See Matter of Jordan, 927 F.2d 221, 227 (5th Cir.1991), overruled by Coston v. Malvern, 991 F.2d 257, 259 (5th Cir.1993);
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads In re Jordan 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