Poland v. Educational Credit Management Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
382 F.3d 1185 · 2004
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 528 (§ 229 of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005)
Relies on Andersen v. UNIPAC-NEBHELP · United States v. Richman · In Re Christopher Banks · DePaolo v. United States ex rel. Internal Revenue Service · Grynberg v. United States
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.
“The unfortunate result of Andersen is that astute attorneys now insert student loan discharge language ... into Chapter 13 plans hoping to achieve preclusive effect, notwithstanding: (1) Bankruptcy Code § 528(a)(8) explicitly precludes the discharge of a debtor’s student loan absent a showing of undue hardship, (2) Bankruptcy Rules specifically require a successful adversary proceeding, complete with individualized service of process, to establish undue hardship and discharge a student loan, and (3) lack of required notice under the Bankruptcy Rules proscribes preclusive effect.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Andersen was wrongly decided and should be reconsidered.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.