In Re Greer’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably In the Matter of John Joseph METZ, Debtor. DOWNEY SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. John Joseph METZ, Appellee (1987), Nelson v. Easley (In Re Easley) (1987)
3 federal appellate ·
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. § 1322 · 11 U.S.C. § 522
Relies on United States v. Estus · Goeb v. Heid · Lawrence Tractor Co. v. Gregory · Deans v. O'Donnell · In Re Khalil and Shahin Chinichian, Debtors. Khalil and Shahin Chinichian v. Attilio Campolongo
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.
“A more substantial payment to unsecured creditors ... does not qualify as “cause” for a Chapter 13 plan to extend more than three years. Every three-year plan providing less than full repayment to unsecured creditors can be extended to provide more substantial payment to them. If such payment were to qualify as “cause,” the chapter 13 trustee could routinely object to all such plans, and the three-year Chapter 13 plan would become the exception, rather than the rule. This is surely not a legitimate interpretation of section 1322(c)....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Matter of Davis · In Re Fries“(c) The plan may not provide for payments over a period that is longer than three years, unless the court, for cause, approves a longer period, but the court may not approve a period that is longer than five years.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Pierce · In Re Festa“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— (A) the value of the property to be distributed under the plan on account of such claim is not less than the amount of such claim; or (B) the plan provides that all of the debtor’s projected disposable income to be received in the three-year period beginning on the date that the first payment is due under the plan will be applied to make payments under the plan.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Fries
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.