In Re Scott’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Harshbarger v. Pees (1995), In Re: Luisa Anes (1999)
2 federal appellate · 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. § 1306 · 11 U.S.C. § 1325 · 11 U.S.C. § 506 · 11 U.S.C. § 523 · 11 U.S.C. § 552 · 11 U.S.C. § 553 · 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Board of Assessors of the Parish of Orleans v. New York Life Insurance Company · Moore v. S Raine · New York City Employees' Retirement System v. Villarie · In Re Festner · Matter of Jones
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) the value of the property to be distributed under the plan on account of such claim is not less than the amount of such claim; or (B) the plan provides that all of the debtor’s projected disposable income to be received in the three-year period beginning on the date that the first payment is due under the plan will be applied to make payments under the plan.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Anes v. Dehart · In Re Jaiyesimi“means income which is received by the debtor and which is not reasonably necessary to be expended-- 15 (A) For the maintenance or support of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor.... 16 11 U.S.C. Sec. 1325(b) (emphasis added). 17 Debtors' Plan proposes to deduct $61.17 per month from the disposable income available to pay unsecured creditors so that Mrs. Harshbarger may restore her full interest in the ERISA account. This expenditure may represent prudent financial planning, but it is not necessary for the”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Harshbarger v. Pees
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.