Schultz v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 3 district ·

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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In 2005, the landscape for bankruptcy filings dramatically changed. Responding to a growing belief that “bankruptcy relief may be too readily available and is sometimes used as a first resort, rather than a last resort,” and the prevalence of “opportunistic personal filings and abuse,” Congress enacted BAPCPA in order to require above-median income debtors to make more funds available for the payment of unsecured creditors. The centerpiece of the Act is the imposition of a “means test” for Chapter 7 filers, which requires would-be debtors to demonstrate financial eligibility to avoid the presumption that their bankruptcy filing is an abuse of the bankruptcy proceedings.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re St. Jean · In re Maura

2. “(b)(1) If the trustee or the holder of an allowed unsecured claim objects to the confirmation of the plan, then the court may not approve the plan unless, as of the effective date of the plan— (B) the plan provides that all of the debtor’s projected disposable income to be received in the applicable commitment period beginning on the date that the first payment is due under the plan will be applied to make payments to unsecured creditors under the plan. (2) For the purposes of this subsection, the term “disposable income” means current monthly income received by the debtor ... less amounts reasonably necessary to be expended— (A) (i) for the maintenance or support of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor...; (3) Amounts reasonably necessary to be expended under paragraph (2) ... shall be determined in accordance with sub-paragraph (A) and (B) of section 707(b)(2), if the debtor has a current monthly income, when multiplied by 12, greater than— (B) in the case of a debtor in a household of 2, 3, or 4 individuals, the highest median income of the applicable State for a family of the same number....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Darrohn v. Hildebrand

3. “• that there are “special circumstances, such as a serious medical condition or a call or order to active duty in the Armed Forces, to the extent such special circumstances that justify additional expenses or adjustments of current monthly income for which there is no reasonable alternative;” and • that such “additional expenses or adjustments to income,” when applied to the debtor’s means test numbers, changes the end result of the means test to a level at which the presumption of abuse no longer arises.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Maura