In Re Quick’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 11 U.S.C. § 1325 · 11 U.S.C. § 362 · 11 U.S.C. § 502 · 11 U.S.C. § 506 · 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 1409 · 28 U.S.C. § 157
Relies on United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Richards v. United States · Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission · Wright v. Secretary for the Department of Corrections W
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The problem with this reading is that paragraph (5) is the only paragraph in § 1325(a) that even references “allowed secured claim provided for by the plan” or even allowed secured claim. There is no other provision which could logically be read to mean “for this purpose” or “in this paragraph” section 506 shall apply to allowed secured claims since no other section governs the treatment of secured claims in a chapter 13 plan.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Pinti
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.