Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 12 F.3d 1008 - In Re Teresa Jo Hoggle

In Re Teresa Jo Hoggle’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
1
states following
January 2023
most recently cited

2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently January 2023 · most notably In Re: Carmen Bateman, In Re Grady (2006)

2 district · 1 state decisions

2601994200020102020decided

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. § 1322

Relies on United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. · Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc. · Capital Factors, Inc. v. Empire for Him, Inc. · 203 F. Supp. 459 - In Re Garrett

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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b)(2) and applicable nonbankruptcy law— (1) a default with respect to, or that gave rise to, a lien on the debtor’s principal residence may be cured under paragraph (3) or (5) of subsection (b) until such residence is sold at a foreclosure sale that is conducted in accordance with applicable nonbank-ruptcy law.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b)(2) and applicable nonbankruptcy law— s[« :H * s(s (2) in a case in which the last payment of the original payment schedule for a claim secured only by a security interest in real property that is the debtor’s principal residence is due before the date on which the final payment under the plan is due, the plan may provide for the payment of the claim as modified pursuant to section 1325(a)(5) of this title.” [[Image here]] "(e) Notwithstanding subsection (b)(2) of this section and sections 506(b) and 1325(a)(5) of this title, if it is proposed in a plan to cure a default, the amount necessary to cure the default, shall be determined in accordance with the underlying agreement and applicable non-bankruptcy law.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(a) At any time after confirmation of the plan but before the competition of payments under such plan, the plan may be modified, upon request of the debtor, ... to— (1) increase or reduce the amount of payments on claims of a particular class provided for by the plan; (2) extend or reduce the time for such payments; or (3) alter the amount of the distribution to a creditor whose claim is provided for by the plan to the extent necessary to take account of any payment of such claim other than under the plan. (b)(1) Sections 1322(a), 1322(b), and 1323(c) of this title and the requirements of section 1325(a) of this title apply to any modification under subsection (a) of this section. 8jc Hs 5k if!”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.