Danielson v. Flores’s Empirical Analysis
735 F.3d 855 · 2013
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 11 U.S.C. § 1306 · 11 U.S.C. § 1321 · 11 U.S.C. § 1322 · 11 U.S.C. § 1325 · 11 U.S.C. § 1329 · 11 U.S.C. § 521 · 11 U.S.C. § 707
Relies on Grogan v. Garner · Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Mass. · Miller v. Gammie · Mayo Foundation for Medical Education & Research v. United States · 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A minimum duration for Chapter 13 plans is crucial to an important purpose of § 1329’s modification process: to ensure that unsecured creditors have a mechanism for seeking increased (that is, non-zero) payments if a debtor’s financial circumstances improve unexpectedly. ... [E]ven if a debtor has no projected disposable income at the time of plan confirmation, and his or her statutorily required payments under § 1325(b)(1)(B) are therefore $0, unsecured creditors may request a later modification of the plan to increase the debtor’s payments if the debtor acquires disposable income during the pendency of the applicable commitment period. Creditors’ opportunity to seek increased payments that correspond to changed circumstances would be undermined by an interpretation of § 1325(b)(1)(B) that relieves debtors from a minimum plan duration merely because they have no projected disposable income at the time of plan confirmation. 4”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Roe“Our interpretation of § 1325(b)(1)(B) does not render that provision redundant with § 1322(d), which sets forth the maximum periods of time for a chapter 13 bankruptcy, because § 1325(b)(1)(B) concerns the plan’s minimum duration. ... Furthermore, § 1325(b) is triggered only if the trustee or a creditor objects, whereas § 1322(d) applies in all cases, a distinction that suggests that Congress intended the sections to serve different functions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Escarcega“(i) 3 years; or (ii) not less than 5 years, if [the debtor is above median]; and ... may be less than 3 or 5 years, whichever is applicable ..., but only if the plan provides for payment in full of all allowed unsecured claims over a shorter period.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Escarcega
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.