Perle v. Fiero

How courts have described this case

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

• holding in the bankruptcy context that a lawyer’s knowledge of a debtor’s bankruptcy could not be imputed to the lawyer’s creditor client because the knowledge was gained while representing a different client
• finding the plaintiff “has identified no case, nor [was the Ninth Circuit] able to find one, that 27 imputes to a client knowledge that his lawyer gained while representing a different client.”
• “Perle has identified no case, nor are we able to find one, that imputes to a client knowledge that his lawyer gained while representing a different client.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Precedo Capital Group Inc. v. Twitter Inc.
  S.D. New York· 2014-04-21· cited 12×
• In re Leeds
  D. Nevada· 2018-08-01· cited 5×
• Jarreau-Griffin v. City of Vallejo
  E.D. California· 2015-05-18· cited 4×
• In re Vanamann
  D. Nevada· 2016-08-19· cited 4×
• In re Paxton
  N.D. California· 2019-01-29· cited 3×
• Doe v. Boy Scouts of Am.
  D. Idaho· 2018-08-31· cited 2×

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Maria C. Maldonado v. Orlando Ramirez
  Third Circuit· 1985-03-06· cited 156×
• In Re Robert John Price, Debtor. Roy E. Lompa v. Robert John Price
  Ninth Circuit· 1989-03-29· cited 117×
• Ringgold Corp. v. Worrall
  Ninth Circuit· 1989-07-27· cited 51×
• Paul S. Damron v. Vern Herzog, Jr.
  Ninth Circuit· 1995-09-26· cited 32×
• In Re Linzer
  E.D. New York· 2001-07-03· cited 23×
• Ellett v. Stanislaus
  Ninth Circuit· 2007-10-29· cited 12×