Harris v. Fort Oglethorpe State Bank’s Empirical Analysis
721 F.2d 1052 · 1983
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 2017
1 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. § 1301
Relies on In Re Harris · Harris v. Fort Oglethorpe State Bank
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(c) On request of a party in interest and after notice and a hearing, the court shall grant relief from the stay provided by subsection (a) of this section with respect to a creditor, to the extent that— ****** (2) The plan filed by the debtor proposes not to pay such claim; or (3) Such creditor’s interest would be irreparably harmed by continuation of such stay.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Butler · In re Binstock“Under the terms of the agreement with the co-debtor who is not in bankruptcy, the creditor has a right to collect all payments to the extent they are not made by the debtor at the time they are due. To the extent to which a Chapter 13 plan does not propose to pay a creditor his claims, the creditor may obtain relief from the court from the automatic stay and collect such claims from the co-debtor. Conversely, a co-debtor obtains the benefit of any payments made to the creditor under the plan.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Binstock“is to enable the consumer-debtor to propose a repayment plan without undue pressure to give preference to a debt involving a co-signer. Congress believed that if a creditor could automatically reach the assets of a co-signer, who is generally a close friend or a relative of the debtor, then the co-signer would induce the debtor to give preference to that debt. Such a preference could easily frustrate the ability of the debtor to submit an acceptable plan.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Moy
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.