In Re DeSardi’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 5 district ·

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

1. “(5) with respect to each allowed secured claim provided for by the plan— (iii) if— (I) property to be distributed pursuant to this subsection is in' the form of periodic payments, such payments shall be in equal monthly amounts [emphasis provided] ‘”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re White · In Re Erwin

2. “[b]efore or at the time of each payment to creditors under the plan, there shall be paid ... any unpaid claim [for administrative expenses allowed under section 503(b).]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Miceli · In re Amaya

3. “The equal payment provision does not state that its requirements must be met beginning in month one of the plan. Nor does the section state that payments must be equal “as of the effective date of the plan.” In contrast, the immediately preceding section of § 1325(a)(5)(B)(ii) does use such language. That section states that “Except as provided in subsection (b) the court shall confirm a plan if ... with respect to each allowed secured claim provided for by the plan ... the plan provides that ... the value, as of the effective date of the plan, of property to be distributed under the plan on account of such claim is not less than the allowed amount of such claim....” 11 U.S.C. § 1325 (a)(5)(B)(ii). While perfectly aware of its drafting options, Congress wrote “[I]f ... property to be distributed pursuant to this subsection is in the form of periodic payments, such payments shall be in equal monthly amounts[.]” 11 U.S.C. § 1325 (a)(5)(B)(iii)(I). Most importantly, subsection 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(II) explicitly requires that payments be not less than the amount to provide adequate protection “during the period of the plan.” No similar language exists in subsection (I). The Court understands this clause to require payments to be equal once they begin, and to continue to be equal until they cease.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Butler