Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 401 B.R. 469 - In Re Smith

In Re Smith’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
February 2010
most recently cited

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. § 707 · 28 U.S.C. § 157

Relies on Lamie v. United States Trustee · Maney v. Kagenveama · Kibbe v. Sumski · Coop v. Frederickson · Sunahara v. Burchard (In Re Sunahara)

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

  1. “As with “disposable income,” the term “amounts reasonably necessary to be expended” appears only twice in § 1325; once in § 1325(b)(2) and then in § 1325(b)(3). If the Court were to require an additional requirement that the expense also be necessary for a debtor’s “maintenance or support,” it would likewise render as surplusage the clear direction in § 1325(b)(3) as to how “amounts reasonably necessary to be expended” shall be determined.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.