Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 4 BR 403 - In Re Kovich

In Re Kovich’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
August 2020
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably Teamsters National Freight Industry Negotiating Committee v. U.S. Truck Co. (1986), Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Wolff (In Re Wolff) (1982)

3 federal appellate · 2 district ·

31019801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 11 U.S.C. § 1122 · 11 U.S.C. § 1301 · 11 U.S.C. § 1322 · 11 U.S.C. § 1325 · 11 U.S.C. § 522

Relies on In Re Iacovoni · Matter of Curtis · In Re Sutherland · In Re Gay · In Re Blevins

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

  1. “(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a plan may place a claim or an interest in a particular class only if such claim or interest is substantially similar to the other claims or interests of such class. (b) A plan may designate a separate class of claims consisting only of every unsecured claim that is less than or reduced to an amount that the court approves as reasonable and necessary for administrative convenience.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Likewise, because of a debtor’s financial and family situation and the availability of other housing, it may be necessary to make a special provision for past due rent. Such classifications may not be unfair to other unsecured creditors because if they are not permitted the debtor may be forced to file under Chapter 7 and they may receive nothing. Therefore, the classifications are not ipso facto unfair discrimination.”
    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.