Danielson v. Flores’s Empirical Analysis
692 F.3d 1021 · 2012
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 109 · 11 U.S.C. § 1322 · 11 U.S.C. § 1325 · 11 U.S.C. § 1329 · 28 U.S.C. § 158
Relies on United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. · Miller v. Gammie · Mayo Foundation for Medical Education & Research v. United States · Avagyan v. Holder · Hamilton v. Lanning
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This is consistent with a plain reading of the Code. Applicable commitment period appears in subsection (b) of § 1325. First, in (b)(1)(B), it states that projected disposable income to be received in the applicable commitment period is to be applied to unsecured creditors. Then, in (b)(4), it states For purposes of this subsection, the applicable commitment ... is three or five years. The applicable commitment period appears to be exclusively linked to subsection (b) of § 1325. This conclusion is bolstered by § 1329(c), which references applicable commitment period in connection with § 1325(b)(1)(B).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Ballew“we do not write on a clean slate. Instead, our analysis is constrained by our own prior authority, which we are bound to follow unless it is clearly irreconcilable with Lanning. We are not convinced that Lanning has “undercut the theory or reasoning underlying [Kagen-veama] in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable.” [Miller v.] Gammie, 335 F.3d [889,] 900 [ (9th Cir. 2003)] (emphasis added). Thus, only the Supreme Court or an en banc panel of this court may revisit Kagenveama’s holding regarding the applicable commitment period.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Ballew“[The applicable commitment period] may be less than 3 or 5 years ... only if the plan provides for payment in full of all allowed unsecured over a shorter period.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Danielson v. Flores
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.