In Re Stewart’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
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. § 524 · 11 U.S.C. § 707 · 28 U.S.C. § 157
Relies on In Re Charles Ellsworth Krohn AKA Charles E. Krohn, Appellant/debtor · In Re William M. Behlke · In Re Pak · In Re Pier · In Re Oot
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[F]rom a practicable standpoint, it would be unfair to always equate a surplus in one’s income with an 'ability to pay’ under § 707(b)(3). Take, for example, one debtor who seeks to use the bankruptcy process so as to continue living beyond their means versus another debtor who has done everything in their power to economize their monthly expenditures. Obviously, a "totality of the circumstances” analysis under § 707(b)(3)(B) should not treat each of these debtors the same. In re Music, 310 B.R. 359, 362 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 2004). Yet, it is entirely feasible that each debtor could exhibit a like surplus in their monthly budget; or more likely, the debtor attempting to live beyond his means would show less, if any, of a surplus in his monthly income. It thus follows that any § 707(b)(3) analysis, based solely on a surplus in income, is incomplete.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Croft
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.