Marcelino Barbosa’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Factors Funding Co. v. Fili (In Re Fili) (2001), Pak v. eCast Settlement Corp. (In Re Pak) (2007)
6 district · 2 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. § 1306 · 11 U.S.C. § 1327 · 11 U.S.C. § 1329
Relies on Savage Industries Inc Western Auto Supply Company v. Savage Arms Inc · In the Matter of Ronald J. Witkowski, Debtor-Appellant · Arnold v. Weast · Dn Associates v. Dn Associates · Anaheim Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Evans (In Re Evans)
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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The provisions of a confirmed plan bind the debtor and each creditor, whether or not the claim of such creditor is provided for by the plan, and whether or not such creditor has objected to, has accepted, or has rejected the plan.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Jones · In Re Clevenger“(1) all property of the kind specified in such section that the debtor acquires after the commencement of the case but before the case is closed, dismissed, or converted to a case under chapter 7, 11, or 12 of this title, whichever occurs first; and (2) earnings from services performed by the debtor after the commencement of the case but before the case is closed, dismissed, or converted to a case under chapter 7, 11, or 12 of this title, whichever occurs first.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Cruz · In Re Kieta“(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.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Thomas · In Re Murphy
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.