In Re Sharp’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 1322 · 11 U.S.C. § 1325 · 11 U.S.C. § 1328
Relies on Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Wolff (In Re Wolff) · Leser Jj Mickelson v. J Leser K · In Re Barr · Leeper v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency · Hamilton v. Lanning
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.
“[M]any of the student loan cases addressing unfair discrimination are pre-BAPCPA cases. The passage of BAPCPA did not alter the language of § 1322(b)(1) or § 1322(b)(5), giving pre-BAPCPA cases continued relevance. Nevertheless, the Court agrees that BAPCPA impacts the analysis, at least in some cases, because BAPCPA altered the calculation of "projected disposable income” which an above-median income debtor must commit to a plan (assuming a creditor or the trustee objects) and added a requirement that a debtor pay his or her PDI to unsecured creditors. PDI is essentially the "pot” that a debtor must distribute to unsecured creditors in a manner that does not unfairly discriminate.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“That these Debtors have excess income for student loan payments is a function of the historical PDI calculation imposed by BAPCPA, rather than any attempt to evade the payment of their PDI. 19”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Stull
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.