In re Markham’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 11 U.S.C. § 1306 · 11 U.S.C. § 1322 · 11 U.S.C. § 1325 · 11 U.S.C. § 1326 · 11 U.S.C. § 1327 · 11 U.S.C. § 1330 · 11 U.S.C. § 348
Relies on Davis v. Wakelee · Bobroff v. Continental Bank · In the Matter of Daniel L Lybrook and Linda Lou Lybrooks · Perry v. Blum · In Re Lennon
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Nowhere in § 348 nor in any other provision of the Bankruptcy Code is there a suggestion that conversion from chapter 13 to chapter 7 vacates a confirmed plan. Bankruptcy Code § 1330 governing revocation of an order of plan confirmation does not include conversion as a triggering event or ground for revocation. Bankruptcy Code § 349, which is the mirror image of § 348 and is entitled ‘Effect of Dismissal,’ provides that dismissal ‘vacates any order, judgment or transfer ordered under sections 522(i), 542, 550 or 553’ of the Bankruptcy Code. This suggests that if Congress intended conversion to effect the vacating of any order it would have said so explicitly in § 348.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. In re Smith
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.