In Re Thomas Francis Barrett, Jr.’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently January 2021 · most notably Educational Credit Management Corp. v. Mosley (2007), Educational Credit Management Corp. v. Jesperson (2009)
7 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on General Electric Co. v. Joiner · Brunner v. New York State Higher Education Services Corp. · Russel William Burket v. Ronald Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections · In the Matter of Jerry L Roberson Appeal of Illinois Student Assistance Commission · Cheesman v. Tennessee Student Assistance Corp.
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) That the debtor cannot maintain, based on current income and expenses, a ‘minimal’ standard of living for herself and her dependents if forced to repay the loans; (2) The additional circumstances exist indicating that this state of affairs is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period of the student loans; and (3) That the debtor has made good faith efforts to repay the loans.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Congress recently enacted “the most sweeping reform of bankruptcy law since the enactment of the Bankruptcy Code in 1978.” Michael & Phelps, supra, at 77-78; see also Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-8, 119 Stat. 23 (codified in various sections of 11 U.S.C.). Yet Congress left § 523(a)(8)’s “undue hardship” language intact. Had Congress intended participation in the ICRP — implemented in 1994 — to effectively repeal discharge under § 523(a)(8), it could have done so. In addition, requiring enrollment in the ICRP runs counter to the Bankruptcy Code’s aim in providing debtors a “fresh start.” The debtor is encumbered with the debt for an additional twenty-five years, regardless of the length of the student loans. If, at the end of the twenty-five years, the debtor has been unable to repay all the student loans, the remaining debt is canceled and that discharge of indebtedness is treated as taxable income. See Michael & Phelps, supra, at 105. The result, as the bankruptcy court noted, would be that [the debtor] would “be trading one nondischargeable debt for another.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) A discharge ... does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt— unless excepting such debt from, discharge under this paragraph would impose an undue hardship on the debtor and the debtor’s dependents, for— (A)(i) an educational benefit overpayment or loan made, insured, or guaranteed by a governmental unit, or made under any program funded in whole or in part by a governmental unit or nonprofit institution; or (ii) an obligation to repay funds received as an educational benefit, scholarship, or stipend; or (B) any other educational loan that is a qualified education loan, as defined in section 221(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, incurred by a debtor who is an individual!)]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.