In Re Quarterman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]n a single case, a debtor’s spouse’s income shall be included in the debtor’s current monthly income to the extent that it is paid “on a regular basis for the household expenses of the debtor or the debtor’s dependents.” Thus, based upon the explicit language of [Section 101 (10A)], current monthly income does not include all the income of the non-debtor spouse, but rather only amounts expended on a regular basis for household expenses. If income is. not (1) expended regularly (2) on household expenses, then it is not included in the debtor’s current monthly income.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Lightsey · In Re Sale

2. “Prior to BAPCPA, several courts addressed the issue of whether a debtor’s non-filing spouse’s income should be considered when determining whether all of a debtor’s disposable income is being applied to the debtor’s Chapter 13 plan. The majority of courts have held that the court must consider the income of a non-debtor spouse in calculating the debtor’s disposable income. See In re Williamson, 296 B.R. 760, 764 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.2003) (stating that the failure to consider the impact of the non-debtor spouse’s income would leave the debtor’s unsecured creditors to subsidize the spouse’s expenses); In re McNichols, 249 B.R. 160, 170 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.2000) (stating that the totality of the family’s income is appropriately considered in calculating a debtor’s disposable income); In re Ehret, 238 B.R. 85, 88 (Bankr.D.N.J.1999) (stating that the inclusion of a non-debtor spouse’s income is appropriate when determining a debt- or’s disposable income); but see In re Nahat, 278 B.R. 108, 114 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.2002) (stating that section 1325(b)(2) defines disposable income as income “received by the debtor”). However, ... Congress amended the definition of disposable income, in section 1325(b)(2), to state that disposable income means “current monthly income received by the debtor ... less amounts reasonably necessary to be expended— (A)(i) for the maintenance or support of the debtor or a dependent of the debt- or....” 11 U.S.C. § 1325 (b)(2) (2005) (emphasis added). According to section 10”

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

3. “the average monthly income from all sources that the debtor receives ..., derived during the 6-month period ending on ... the last day of the calendar month immediately preceding the date of the commencement of the case.” 11 U.S.C. § 101 (10A)(A)(I) (2005). Thus,”

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