In Re: Carmen Bateman’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Whaley v. Tennyson (2010), In Re Shank (2004)
9 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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. § 1327
Relies on Nobelman v. American Savings Bank · Stoll v. Gottlieb · Baltimore Co v. Phillips · Green v. Bock Laundry MacHine Co. · Associates Commercial Corp. v. Rash
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Subject to subsections (a) and (c) of this section, the plan may - (5) ... provide for the curing of any default within a reasonable time and maintenance of payments while the case is pending on any unsecured claim or secured claim on which the last payment is due after the date on which the final payment under the plan is due.... ””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Wimmer · In re Mandeville“'a secured creditor's claim for mortgage arrearage survives the confirmed plan to the extent that it is not satisfied in full by payments under the plan,'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[g]iven the ‘deemed allowed’ language of § 502, the explicit procedures set forth in Rule 3007 to effect a proper disallowance, the existence of a secured home mortgage claim, and the failure by the debtor here, not the creditor, to follow the proper procedures, we refuse to permit an inconsistent plan provision to constitute a constructive objection by reason of the Plan’s notation of dispute alone, especially where a bankruptcy court does not consider an objection until over a year after the Plan’s confirmation. See In re Starling, 251 B.R. [908] at 910 [ (Bankr.S.D.Fla.2000) ] (‘To allow the Debtor to object, months after the plan has been confirmed, would contradict the “finality” objective of the confirmation process and would overlook the express language of section 1327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.’) That the plan states an amount in conflict with the proof of claim demands a resolution of the inconsistency, but a debtor’s post-confirmation objection is not the appropriate vehicle by which to do so.” In re Bateman, 331 F.3d at 828 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Martin · In re Galindez
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.