Andersen v. UNIPAC-NEBHELP’s Empirical Analysis
179 F.3d 1253 · 1999
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 18 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 124 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably James W. Adair v. Michael L. Sherman and Sherman & Sherman (2000), In Re Christopher Banks (2002)
28 federal appellate · 18 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. § 1328 · 11 U.S.C. § 523 · 11 U.S.C. § 524 · 28 U.S.C. § 158
Relies on In re Szostek · Lawrence Tractor Co. v. Gregory · State Bank of India v. Chalasani · United States v. Richman · Woodcock v. Chemical Bank, NYSHESC
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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(8) for an educational benefit overpayment or loan made, insured or guaranteed by a governmental unit, or made under any program funded in whole or in part by a governmental unit or nonprofit institution, or for an obligation to repay funds received as an educational benefit, scholarship or stipend, unless excepting such debt from discharge under this paragraph will impose an undue hardship on the debtor and the debt- or's dependents.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“it cannot later complain about a certain provision contained in a confirmed plan, even if such a provision is inconsistent with the Code.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hile we do not understate the importance of the obligation of the bankruptcy court or the trustee to determine that a plan complies with the appropriate sections of the Bankruptcy Code prior to confirmation of the plan, we nonetheless recognize that the affirmative obligation to object to the . . . plan rested with [HEAF], not with the bankruptcy court or the trustee.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Disney · In Re Gardner
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.