Branigan v. Bateman’s Empirical Analysis
515 F.3d 272 · 2008
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably In Re Jarvis (2008), Branigan v. Davis (2013)
5 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 109 · 11 U.S.C. § 1325 · 11 U.S.C. § 1328 · 11 U.S.C. § 348 · 11 U.S.C. § 727 · 28 U.S.C. § 158
Relies on Connecticut National Bank v. Germain · Lamie v. United States Trustee · Johnson v. Home State Bank · Barnhart Commissioner of Social Security v. Thomas · United States v. Naftalin
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(f) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), the court shall not grant a discharge of all debts provided for in the plan or disallowed under section 502, if the debt- or has received a discharge— (1) in a case filed under chapter 7, 11, or 12 of this title during the 4-year period preceding the date of the order for relief under this chapter, or (2) in a case filed under chapter 13 of this title during the 2-year period preceding the date of such order.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Jarvis · In re Klein“A debtor who files a new Chapter 13 petition after receiving a discharge in a typical three-to-five year Chapter 13 plan would never be prohibited under § 1328(f)(2) from receiving a discharge, but a debtor who obtained a Chapter 13 discharge in a case filed within the last two years would be prohibited from receiving a discharge, as would debtors filing under Chapter 7 within the last four years.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“... Congress expressly made a distinction between plans running three years or longer, on the one hand, and plans running less than three years, on the other hand, in Section 1325(b). There is nothing in the Bankruptcy Code to indicate that Congress also did not distinguish between plans completed in two years or less, compared to plans completed in three years or more, in section 1328(f)(2).”
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.