Pliler v. Stearns’s Empirical Analysis
747 F.3d 260 · 2014
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 1305 · 11 U.S.C. § 1321 · 11 U.S.C. § 1325 · 11 U.S.C. § 1329
Relies on Mayo Foundation for Medical Education & Research v. United States · Hamilton v. Lanning · Ransom v. FIA Card Services, N. A. · Hamilton v. Lanning · Maney v. Kagenveama
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“reasonable and necessary.” As the Fourth Circuit pointed out in Pliler v. Stearns, 747 F.3d 260, 267 (4th Cir.2014) ”[w]e do not doubt a bankruptcy court’s ability to consider Schedule I, Schedule J, or other pertinent evidence to capture 'known or virtually certain’ changes to disposable income: After all, the Supreme Court itself did so in Hamilton v. Lanning, 560 U.S. 505, 508 , 130 S.Ct. 2464 , 177 L.Ed.2d 23 (2010).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Harris
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.