Hamilton v. Lanning’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term “disposable income” means current monthly income received by the debtor (other than child support payments, foster care payments, or disability payments for a dependent child made in accordance with applicable nonbankruptcy law to the extent reasonably necessary to be expended for such child) less amounts reasonably necessary to be expended- (A)(i) for the maintenance or support of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor, or for a domestic support obligation, that first becomes payable after the date the petition is filed; and (ii) for charitable contributions (that meet the definition of "charitable contribution” under section 548(d)(3) to a qualified religious or charitable entity or organization (as defined in section 548(d)(4))) in an amount not to exceed 15 percent of gross income of the debtor for the year in which the contributions are made; and (B)if the debtor is engaged in business, for the payment of expenditures necessary for the continuation, preservation, and operation of such business.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. American Express Bank, FSB v. Smith (In Re Smith) · In re Murchek

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 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Nowlin v. Peake · In Re Bartelini

3. “In Hamilton, the Supreme Court addressed the method by which current monthly income should be calculated for purposes of determining projected disposable income under 11 U.S.C. § 1325 . Id. at 2469 . Petitioners in the case argued for a “mechanical approach” that unflinchingly applied the plain statutory language to every case, no matter the result. Id. at 2471 . Respondents argued for a “forward looking” approach that could take into account the variables of each case. Id. Respondents acknowledged the “mechanical approach” would always be the starting point and would end up applying in most cases, but argued exceptional circumstances should be taken into account through the “forward looking” approach to make reasonable adjustments to the calculation. Id. The Supreme Court adopted Respondent’s “forward looking approach.” Id. at 2477-78 . The Court found the plain statutory language as written in § 1325 should be the starting point for each case, but allowed for a narrow exception to be considered in unusual cases. Id. The Court found this would effectuate Congressional intent and avoid absurd results. Id. In reaching its conclusion in Hamilton, the Supreme Court was persuaded by several important factors. The Court found that bankruptcy courts had traditionally retained some discretion to account for extraordinary circumstances that did not fit the general approach. Id. at 2472-73. The Court noted that this was “well-documented in contemporary bankruptcy treatises.” Id. at 24”

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