In Re McSparran’s Empirical Analysis
2009
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. § 541 · 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 157
Relies on Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo · Mansell v. Mansell · In Re Hardacre · In Re Jass · Maney v. Kagenveama
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.
“This Court’s decision, In re Kaufman, 2008 WL 3878005 , (Bankr.D.Mont.2008) cited Kagenveama for the proposition that, for above median income debtors, reasonably necessary expenses are calculated using the “Means Test” of § 707(b)(2)(A) and (B). This Court in addition has adopted the analysis from In re Austin, 372 B.R. 668, 680-83 (Bankr.D.Vt.2007), that where a debtor is current on a secured obligation that is provided for in Form 22C, the Court refrains from determining whether the expense is reasonable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Prigge
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.