In Re Pearson’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently January 2009 · most notably Di Pierro v. Taddeo (1982), Federal Land Bank v. Glenn (1985)
4 federal appellate · 6 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 11 U.S.C. § 109 · 11 U.S.C. § 1322 · 11 U.S.C. § 507
Relies on Ladd v. . Stevenson · United Companies Financial Corp. v. Brantley · Hallenbeck v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance · Di Pierro v. Cullen (In Re Taddeo) · In Re Butchman
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This Court agrees that Chapter 13 should be liberally interpreted, but in view of the serious implications for the home mortgage market of the interpreta tion urged by the debtors, a policy change of this magnitude should not be imputed to Congress, absent some clear expression of legislative intent. Permitting a debtor to reinstate the original terms of a defaulted mortgage after a judgment, providing only that it was done prior to sale, would necessarily affect adversely the home mortgage market by making such mortgages less attractive to investors. These are serious policy considerations. Had Congress intended a policy change of this magnitude, with all the complications such a change would produce, it is reasonable to assume that Congress would have used language appropriate to that end. It did not.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(2) modify the rights of holders of secured claims other than a claim secured only by a security interest in real property that is the debtor’s principal residence ... (5) notwithstanding paragraph (2) of this subsection, provide for the curing of any default within a reasonable time and maintenance of payments while the case is pending on any ... secured claim on which the last payment is due after the date on which the final payment under the plan is due”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“To hold that, nevertheless, the bankruptcy court could approve a Chapter 13 plan that paid out over the life of the plan only the arrearages, not the full judgment, would create enormous uncertainty for all concerned — the mortgagor, the mortgagee, and the courts. What would be the status of an unsatisfied judgment when the Chapter 13 plan terminated after three or five years, and the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court ended? Could the mortgagee then seek enforcement of his judgment? If not, why not, since the judgment had never been satisfied? True, the Chapter 13 plan had cured arrearages, but it had not paid off the judgment. It would be up to the state courts to decide to what extent the judgment survived. How this would be done procedurally is unclear. Equally unclear is what the result would be. Nor would the results necessarily be uniform. For a period of years, neither the debtors, nor the mortgagees, would know their rights. ( 10 B.R. at 194 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re McKinney
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.