Carmichael v. Osherow’s Empirical Analysis
100 F.3d 375 · 1996
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2021 · most notably Rousey v. Jacoway (2005), Farm Credit Bank v. Guidry (1997)
11 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 522 · 11 U.S.C. § 541 · 26 U.S.C. § 408 (§ 2002 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 26 U.S.C. § 72
Relies on Velis v. Kardanis · Bridges v. City of Bossier · Clark v. O'Neill · In Re Hall · In Re Hickenbottom
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a payment under a stock bonus, pension, profitsharing, annuity, or similar plan or contract on account of illness, disability, death, age, or length of service, to the extent reasonably necessary for the support of the debtor and any dependent of the debtor, unless (i) such plan or contract was established by or under the auspices of an insider that employed the debtor at the time the debtor’s rights under such plan or contract arose; (ii) such payment is on account of age or length of service; and (iii) such plan or contract does not qualify under section 401(a), 403(a), 403(b), or 408 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he four types of plans or contracts that are listed by name in paragraph (d)(10)(E) as per se exempt are substitutes for future earnings. IRAs too are substitutes for future earnings in that they are designed to provide retirement benefits to individuals. The age limita tion on withdrawal illustrates Congress’ intent to provide income to an individual in his advanced years. To exempt an IRA as a “similar plan or contract,” then, is consistent with the treatment of other deferred compensation and retirement benefits.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a restriction to the right to receive payments presently, to the exclusion of a present right to receive payments in the future. The language of the section does not include words like “presently,” “currently,” or “immediately.” Indeed, to infer such would be to exclude from consideration all deferred compensation and retirement accounts that have not yet ripened to current payment status. Again, that which is exempt is the right to receive payments, whether future or present, not merely the current receipt of payments.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Dale · In Re Outen
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.