In Re Charles Lopez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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

1. “The bankruptcy court's choice of remedies is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jones v. Brand Law Firm, P.A. (In re Belmonte) · In Re Straightline Investments, Inc.

2. “In [Renwick v.] Bennett, [(In re Bennett), 298 F.3d 1059, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2002) ] former law partners sued each other over the proper interpretation of a post-discharge settlement agreement, where the parties agreed to pay a debt discharged in bankruptcy in exchange for a release of one partner’s claims against the other. Id. at 1063 . The court observed that Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code in 1978 by adding § § 524(c) and (d) to address the problem of post-bankruptcy attempts to enforce pre-bankruptcy obligations in non-bankruptcy forums using non-bankruptcy law. Id. at 1066. The court held that a post-petition agreement to repay a discharged debt is not a valid reaffirmation agreement under § 524(c) if the consideration offered by the debtor is the repayment of the discharged debt. Id. at 1067. Since the consideration for the release was repayment of the discharged debt, the agreement amounted to an attempted reaffirmation. Id. The fact that one partner allegedly offered new consideration was inconsequential. Id. Consequently, the contract claim was barred under § 524(a). Id. at 1068.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 901 So. 2d 574 - Hibernia National Bank v. Taylor

3. “(1) inform the debtor— (A) that such an agreement is not required under this title, under non-bankruptcy law, or under any agreement not made in accordance with the provisions of subsection (c) of this section; and (B) of the legal effect and consequences of— (i) an agreement of the kind specified in subsection (c) of this section; and (ii) a default under such an agreement; and (2) determine whether the agreement that the debtor desires to make complies with the requirements of subsection (c)(6) of this section, if the consideration for such agreement is based in whole or in part on a consumer debt that is not secured by real property of the debtor.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Andreyev v. First National Bank of Omaha (In Re Andreyev)