In the Matter of Kenneth W Smith Appeal of State of Indiana’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 165 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably In the Matter of Robert John Love, Debtor-Appellant (1992), In the Matter of Daniel J Yonikus and Carolyn S Yonikuss Appeal of Daniel J Yonikus
13 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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
Relies on Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill · Kelly v. Robinson · Midlantic National Bank v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection · United States v. Estus · Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. Whitman
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 165 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the Plan complies ‘with the provisions of this chapter and with the other applicable provisions of this title; [and if] ‡ (3) the plan has been proposed in good faith and not by any means forbidden by law.... 11 U.S.C. § 1325 (a)(1), (3).”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Reyes · In Re Halko“(1) 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. (2) For purposes of this subsection, ‘disposable income' means income which is received by the debtor and which is not reasonably necessary to be expended— (A) for the maintenance or support of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor; and (B) if the debtor is engaged in business, for the payment of expenditures necessary for the continuation, preservation, and operation of such business. 11 U.S.C. § 1325 (b).”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) Does the proposed plan state [debt- or’s] secured and unsecured debts accurately? (2) Does it state [debtor’s] expenses accurately? (3) Is the percentage of repayment of unsecured claims correct? (4) If there are or have been deficiencies in the plan, do the inaccuracies amount to an attempt to mislead the bankruptcy court? (5) Do the proposed payments indicate “a fundamental fairness in dealing with one’s creditors,” [I ]n re Beaver, 2 B.R. 337, 340 (Bkrtcy. S.D. Cal. 1980)?”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Ligon · In re Banks
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.