Prescher v. Baker Ice Machine Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Fed. R. Evid. 201(e) places burden on appellant to request hearing on propriety of judicial notice even after notice is taken
• stating that a bankruptcy attorney practicing exclusively in bankruptcy law should have been aware that answers must be complete, truthful and reliable
• acknowledging that “an omission of assets from a Statement of Affairs or schedule may constitute a false oath under section 727(a)(4)(A).”
• noting materiality’s significance to “the discovery of assets, business dealings, or the existence and disposition of [the debtor’s] property” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• observing that “the debtor will be the only person able to testify directly concerning his intent and he is unlikely to state that his intent was fraudulent[,]” and stating that ‘[therefore, fraudulent intent may be deduced from the facts and circumstances of a case.”
• noting as significant that the debtor had not one but four separate omissions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).