In Re Fort’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 11 U.S.C. § 1141 · 11 U.S.C. § 1322 · 11 U.S.C. § 1327 · 11 U.S.C. § 1328 · 11 U.S.C. § 301 · 11 U.S.C. § 362 · 11 U.S.C. § 501
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Younger v. Harris · S.S. Zoe Colocotroni v. Puerto Rico · Ankenbrandt Lr Sr v. A Richards · Central Virginia Community College v. Katz
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“For debts that are dischargeable, it is perfectly logical and understandable that the discharge which a debtor obtains after successfully completing his or her confirmed chapter 13 plan will be effective as to both debts which have been provided for in such plan and also those which have been “disallowed.” Therefore, it may not be appropriate to try to apply this language across-the-board with respect to debts which are both non-dischargeable and disallowed. Even if one attempts to do just that, however, there is a meaningful interpretation for such language.... To re-use an example already noted in this opinion, § 502(b)(2) provides for disallowance of unmatured interest as of the filing date. Accordingly, post-petition interest on a non-dischargeable debt would be disallowed by § 502, but even so would be excepted from the scope of a chapter 13 discharge. Such a construction of the language is not only entirely reasonable, but it also avoids the absurd situation which would be presented by a construction which would except from discharge child support or educational loan debts which had been disallowed as valid claims against the debtor or the bankruptcy estate on a basis such as payment in full. In short, there is no need to except from discharge a debt which no longer exists.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“If the State’s contention that its post-confirmation collection activities are not affected by the provisions of a confirmed plan were to be accepted, then a creditor with protection against the automatic stay would be free to collect a debt in lany way it sees fit.”); In re Worland, No. 08-2148-AJM-13, 2009 WL 1707512 , at (Bankr. S.D. Ind. June 16, 2009) (finding that 1ihe DSO creditor violated the plan because”
1 later decision 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.