Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 6 B.R. 360 - In Re Burrell

In Re Burrell’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
1
states following
September 1990
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently September 1990 · most notably Rimgale Ravenot v. S Rimgale, In Re Heard (1980)

2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

38019801990decided

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. § 1325 · 11 U.S.C. § 727

Relies on Cannon v. University of Chicago · Perry v. Commerce Loan Co. · In Re Iacovoni · In Re Beaver · In Re Burrell

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. “the debtor will be able to make all payments under the plan and to comply with the plan”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a fundamental fairness in dealing with one's creditors,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The correct approach * * * is to treat the issues of substantiality and best effort as elements of good faith. Unless the courts have discretion to consider such factors, the danger exists that Chapter 13 plans could become shams that would emasculate the safeguards that Congress has included in Chapter 7 to prevent debtor abuse of the bankruptcy laws. The courts retain discretion to prevent such abuse, and that discretion can be exercised effectively through a meaningful interpretation of the good faith requirement of § 1325(a)(3). In each case, the bankruptcy court must consider the debt- or’s entire circumstances to determine whether his plan proposes to make meaningful payments to unsecured creditors. In making that determination, the courts should be mindful of the fact that the unsecured creditors must rely on the court to give meaning to the congressional intent that they receive substantial payments. Within these guidelines, the courts should proceed on a case-by-case basis. 6 B.R. 360 , 366.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.