In Re Britt’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently June 2013
1 federal appellate ·
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. § 1321 · 11 U.S.C. § 1323 · 11 U.S.C. § 1327 · 11 U.S.C. § 501 · 11 U.S.C. § 502 · 11 U.S.C. § 506 · 28 U.S.C. § 157
Relies on Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Nobelman v. American Savings Bank · Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford · Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Greenwich Collieries · Machinery Rental, Inc. v. Herpel
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If the provisions of § 1325(a)(5) are mandatory, as Kissell contends, then a plan cannot be confirmed if it does not meet the requirements of that section. We must determine whether § 1325(a)(5)(B)(ii) is mandatory, as Kis-sell contends, or whether the section is discretionary, i.e., it guarantees confirmation if a plan comports with the statutory provisions, but does not mandate that the provisions be met in order for confirmation to occur. We note at the outset that the Code section which explicitly contains mandatory requirements for confirmation of a debtor’s Chapter 13 plan is 11 U.S.C. § 1322 , which unequivocally states “the plan shall” do three things. Section 1322 provides in relevant part: (a) The plan shall— (1) provide for the submission of all or such portion of future earnings or other future income of the debtor to the supervision and control of the trustee as is necessary for the execution of the plan; (2) provide for the full payment, in deferred cash payments of claims entitled to full priority under section 507 of this title, unless the holder of a particular claim agrees to a different treatment of such claims; and (3) if the plan classifies claims, provide the same treatment for each claim within a particular class. 11 U.S.C. § 1322 (a). By comparison, the language of § 1325(a) states that a “court shall confirm a plan if’ certain things occur. However, it does not state “only if’ the described events occur. Thus, the logical interpretation is that if the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Section 1325(a) need not be satisfied for the Court to confirm a plan. Section 1325(a) is a “safe harbor” provision by which the debtor can require the Court to confirm a plan which satisfies all its provisions. It provides the Court “shall confirm a plan if,” in addition to satisfying subsection (b), the plan complies with the provisions of each of the six paragraphs of subsection (a). Consequently, the “court is required to confirm if [the] six requirements are met.” H. Rept. No. 95-595 to accompany H.R. 8200, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977) p. 430. See also, S. Rept. No. 95-989 to accompany S. 2266, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. (1978) p. 142. Unlike § 1129, which allows confirmation “only if’ all of its requirements are met, § 1325(a) does not impose mandatory requirements. In re Szostek, 886 F.2d 1405 , 1412 (3d Cir.1989). The Court has discretion, therefore, to confirm a plan which satisfies §§ 1322 and 1325(b) but does not satisfy § 1325(a). Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.