In Re Jones’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently March 2010 · most notably In Re William M. Behlke (2004), Harshbarger v. Pees (1995)
2 federal appellate · 1 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. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 11 U.S.C. § 1322 · 5 U.S.C. § 8401 (District of Columbia Courts and Justice Technical Corrections Act of 1998) · 5 U.S.C. § 8440
Relies on New York City Employees' Retirement System v. Villarie · In Re Shepherd · Mullen v. United States · Matter of Carpenter · In Re Killian
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Here, it appears that the Debtors’ existing retirement benefits would be virtually wiped out if the loan is not repaid. Even so, this result is mandated for two reasons. First, to allow the Debtors to withdraw and claim this as a protected fund would be unfair to their creditors. Second, such a holding would provide an inappropriate message to future debtors. The holding would suggest that debtors contemplating bankruptcy could take out loans against their retirement fund and then insulate those sums from the Chapter 13 trustee. The result would be that sums expended from future earnings on the repayment of these loans would be beyond the creditors’ reach. It is clear that Congress never intended this result. Section 1322 of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a debtor’s estate’ is subject to the total supervision and control of the Chapter 13 trustee and includes all of the debtor’s earnings while the plan is in effect. The public policy consideration of providing debtors with a fresh start merits a similar conclusion. The granting of a fresh start must be accomplished under conditions consistent with the Bankruptcy Code. A guiding principle of bankruptcy is “good faith” and “fairness” in the treatment of creditors. As already mentioned, it would be unfair to the creditors to allow the Debtors in the present case to commit part of their earnings to the payment of their own retirement fund while at the same time paying their creditors less than a 100% dividend.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Scott · In re Tucker
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.