Anderson v. Satterlee’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2020 · most notably Hamilton v. Lanning (2010), Hamilton v. Lanning (2010)
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 · 11 U.S.C. § 1325 · 11 U.S.C. § 1329 · 11 U.S.C. § 341 · 28 U.S.C. § 158 · 29 U.S.C. § 1302 (§ 4002 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Richards v. United States · Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System v. Dimension Financial Corp. · United States v. Mehrmanesh · Education Assistance Corp. v. Zellner · Arnold v. Weast
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) If the trustee or the holder of an allowed unsecured claim objects to the confirmation of the [Chapter 13] plan, then the court may not approve the plan unless, as of the effective date of the plan— * * * * * * (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) For purposes of this subsection, "disposable income” means income which is received by the debtor and which is not reasonably necessary to be expended— (A) for the maintenance or support of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor; and (B) if the debtor is engaged in business, for the payment of expenditures necessary for the continuation, preservation, and operation of such business.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Kuehn · In Re Schiffman“(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.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Profit · In Re Brown“(b)(2) For purposes of this subsection, “disposable income” means current monthly income received by the debtor (other than child support payments, foster care payments, or disability payments for a dependent child made in accordance with applicable nonbankrupt-cy law to the extent reasonably necessary to be expended for such child) less amounts reasonably necessary to be expended— (A)(i) for the maintenance or support of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor, or for a domestic support obligation, that first becomes payable after the date the petition is filed; and (ii) for charitable contributions (that meet the definition of “charitable contribution” under section 548(d)(3)) to a qualified religious or charitable entity or organization (as defined in section 548(d)(4)) in an amount not to exceed 15 percent of gross income of the debtor for the year in which the contributions are made; and (B) if the debtor is engaged in business, for the payment of expenditures necessary for the continuation, preservation, and operation of such business.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Neclerio · In Re Kolb
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.