In Re Davis’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 1322 · 11 U.S.C. § 1325 · 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 157
Relies on United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. · Lamie v. United States Trustee · Pegram v. Herdrich · Trw Inc v. Adelaide Andrews · 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“§ 1325(b) is not a “requirement.” Rather than a prerequisite for confirmation, § 1325(b) is an exception to the confirmation that § 1325(a) otherwise mandates. Section 1325(a) states that courts must confirm a plan that meets its nine requirements; § 1325(b) has the potential for preventing that result. Nothing in § 1325(b) is required for confirmation. No party is required to object to confirmation under that subsection, and even if grounds for objection are present, a plan may be confirmed if the objection is not made.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Tibbs
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.