In Re Price

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the transformational rule did not apply
• “there are simply two separate financial transactions memorialized on a single retail installment contract document for the convenience of some consumers and to allow the auto industry to sell more vehicles”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

30 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• In Re Graupner
  Eleventh Circuit· 2008-08-06· cited 53×
• In Re Price
  Fourth Circuit· 2009-04-13· cited 52×
• General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Peaslee
  W.D. New York· 2007-08-15· cited 51×
• In Re Acaya
  N.D. California· 2007-05-18· cited 31×
• In Re Westfall
  N.D. Ohio· 2007-05-17· cited 29×
• In Re Westfall
  N.D. Ohio· 2007-09-24· cited 27×
• In Re Hayes
  M.D. Tennessee· 2007-11-01· cited 27×
• Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Penrod (In Re Penrod)
  Ninth Circuit· 2008-07-28· cited 23×
• In Re Weiser
  W.D. Missouri· 2007-12-18· cited 21×
• In Re Look
  D. Maine· 2008-03-06· cited 19×
• In Re Burt
  D. Utah· 2007-10-24· cited 19×
• In Re Conyers
  M.D. North Carolina· 2007-11-02· cited 18×
• In Re Mitchell
  M.D. Tennessee· 2007-11-13· cited 17×
• In Re Johnson
  D. Oregon· 2007-12-19· cited 15×
• In Re Bray
  W.D. Tennessee· 2007-04-11· cited 14×
• Graupner v. Nuvell Credit Corp.
  Eleventh Circuit· 2008-08-06· cited 14×
• In Re Schwalm
  M.D. Florida· 2008-01-16· cited 13×
• In Re Ford
  D. Kansas· 2008-05-08· cited 13×
• In Re Phillips
  E.D. Virginia· 2007-03-08· cited 12×
• In Re Wall
  W.D. North Carolina· 2007-09-17· cited 12×