Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 554 B.R. 41 - In re Powers

In re Powers’s Empirical Analysis

2016

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
March 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 11 U.S.C. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 11 U.S.C. § 1307 · 11 U.S.C. § 1325

Relies on In the Matter of Robert John Love, Debtor-Appellant · Hamilton v. Lanning · Education Assistance Corp. v. Zellner · In Re Briscoe · In Re Eatman

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.

  1. “favor the application of either the § 1325(a)(3) or § 1307(c) tests for the reason that these are three independent statutory provisions, and each section serves a separate and distinct purpose. Section 1325(a)(3) tests the reasonableness of the plan and the sincerity of the debtor with respect to that particular plan; § 1325(a)(7) tests whether the filing is fundamentally fair and in a manner that complies with the spirit of the Code; and § 1307(c) seeks, inter alia , to prevent dishonest, ill-motivated, bad faith debtors from invoking the protections of bankruptcy altogether. By its very terms, § 1325(a)(7) contemplates only whether the 'action of the debtor in filing the petition was in good faith.' 11 U.S.C. § 1325 (a)(7). Because Congress purposefully added § 1325(a)(7) to the Code in 2005, in this Court's view, § 1325(a)(7) must serve a purpose different from either § 1325(a)(3) or § 1307(c).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. In re Pfetzer
  2. “legislative history provides no insight into the congressional intent or purpose of § 1325(a)(7)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. In re Pfetzer
  3. “case law is sparse and no binding precedent exists to guide this Court in its analysis of”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. In re Pfetzer

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.