Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 394 B.R. 8 - In Re Jackson

In Re Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
March 2012
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Relationships

Applies 11 U.S.C. § 522 · 11 U.S.C. § 541 · 28 U.S.C. § 158

Relies on BedRoc Limited, LLC v. United States · Bonnanzio National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh Pa v. Bonnanzio · In Re: Vytautas Vebeliunas · In Re Jackson · Surety Administrators, Inc. v. Guadalupe (In Re Guadalupe)

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

  1. “[sjection 522(d)(ll)(E) specifies an exemption for “a payment in compensation of loss of future earnings of the debtor ... to the extent reasonably necessary for the support of the debtor and any dependent of the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 522 (d)(ll)(E). The clear and unambiguous language of the statute creates an estate on the petition date and allows an exemption for a loss of any future earnings after creation of that estate. Jackson and Shelton argue that the term “future” applies to all earnings after the date of their termination, not the date of the petition. Such a reading of the statute is against its clear language. To allow an exemption for earnings prior to the petition date would make the statute retroactive instead of future looking. That reading would render the operative term of the statute—“future”—obsolete and defeat the statute’s purpose. Under Jackson and Shelton’s interpretation, a debtor could receive a lump sum payment in settlement of a dispute years prior to the petition date and still claim that amount as an exemption even though their entitlement to the asset accrued before the petition was filed. That cannot be correct. In order for the term “future” to have any meaning, the earnings exempted must account for a period in the future from the date the estate is created.”
    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.