In Re Webb’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 1325 · 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975) · 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 157
Relies on In Re Jones · In Re Sutliff · In Re JOHNSON · In Re McNichols · In Re Nicola
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the absence of some compelling circumstance, ... [some] courts ... have concluded that, generally speaking, a private school education is not reasonably necessary. See, e.g. Univest-Coppell Village, Ltd. v. Nelson, 204 B.R. 497 (E.D.Tex.1996) [rejecting the payment of monthly tuition for a private high school for debtors’ daughter when debtors had no particular problem with the education offered at the local public school but who wished to defer to their daughter who insisted upon staying in a private school primarily because she was the first freshman to make the school’s cheerleading squad]; In re Jones, 55 B.R. 462, 467 (Bankr.D.Minn.1985) [“An expensive private school education is not a basic need of the Debtor’s dependents, particularly in view of the high quality public education available in this country-”].”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Rathbun“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 debt- or, including charitable contributions ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Watson“An expensive private school education is not a basic need of the Debtor's dependents....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Michael Watson
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.