Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 304 B.R. 751 - In Re Harris

In Re Harris’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
April 2018
most recently cited

1 district ·

Relationships

Applies 11 U.S.C. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 11 U.S.C. § 103 · 11 U.S.C. § 1303 · 11 U.S.C. § 1307 · 11 U.S.C. § 1322 · 11 U.S.C. § 1325 · 11 U.S.C. § 1326 · 11 U.S.C. § 361

Relies on United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd. · United States v. Estus · Benevides v. Alexander · In Re: Sahnica Denise Nolan · In Re Parker

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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Section 1326(b)(1) [relating to payment of attorneys’ fees] itself does not require any such depreciation-protection for [the creditor’s] secured claim. [The creditor] must look elsewhere in the Code for such a requirement. And § 1326(b)(1) itself does not require any delay in payment of Debtors’ attorney fees. Rather, [the creditor’s] argument is best viewed as simply urging that delaying the payment of Debtors’ attorney fees is allowed by § 1326(b)(1), as a permissible method of causing distributions to [the secured creditor] to begin sooner. That is, while [the secured creditor] argues that § 1326(b)(1) allows a delay in payment of Debtors’ attorney fees, in order to achieve greater depreciation-protection for [the secured creditor’s] secured claim, that statute does not require it. As a result, [the secured creditor’s] argument is not a valid objection to confirmation under § 1325(a)(1), because it is not a claim that Debtors’ Plan violates § 1326(b)(1).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In effect, [the secured creditors] would have the Court interpret [pre-BAPCPA section 1325(a)(5) (B) (i) ] as if it stated that the holder of a secured claim must “retain the value of the lien securing such claim.” But the statute does not say this — it merely says that the holder must “retain the lien securing such claim.” To accept the creditors’ argument is to add into § 1325(a)(5)(B) a requirement that Congress did not put there.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Section 1326(b)(1) plainly means that at any given time after confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan, if there is any unpaid, allowed administrative expense, including any unpaid, allowed claim for attorney fees owing to a Debtor’s attorney, no payment may be made to any other creditor under the plan unless the unpaid administrative expense is paid in full, either first or at the same time.”
    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.