In Re Coffman’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 1327 · 11 U.S.C. § 1329 · 11 U.S.C. § 502 · 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 157
Relies on Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail · Simmons v. Savell · Piedmont Trust Bank v. Linkous · James W. Adair v. Michael L. Sherman and Sherman & Sherman · Baudoin Bank of Lafayette v. F Baudoin H
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because all issues addressed during a plan confirmation are given preclusive effect, the bifurcation of a creditor’s claim into a secured and an unsecured claim is likewise given preclusive effect. Thus if a creditor has an allowed secured claim of x dollars, which must be paid during the life of the plan, that issue has been litigated and cannot be altered.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A claim that has been allowed or disallowed may be reconsidered for cause. A reconsidered claim may be allowed or disallowed according to the equities of the case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Hernandez“alter the amount of the distribution to a creditor ... to the extent necessary to take account of any payment of such claim other than under the plan.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Hernandez
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.