Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 86 F.3d 478 - Freeman v. Schulman

Freeman v. Schulman’s Empirical Analysis

86 F.3d 478 · 1996

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
March 2018
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Stuart v. Koch (1997), Sunahara v. Burchard (In Re Sunahara) (2005)

3 federal appellate · 1 district ·

240199620002010decided

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. § 1325

Relies on In re Walton · Hagel v. Drummond (In Re Hagel) · In Re Schnabel · In Re Howell

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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the debtor had specifically identified that tax refunds should go into the plan and made no argument that the funds were needed for”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[i]f the trustee or the holder of an allowed unsecured claim objects to confirmation of the plan, then the court may not approve the plan unless ... (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 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Situations may arise where a debtor did not specifically list tax refunds for inclusion in the plan and those situations would need to be examined on a case-by-case basis to decide whether a tax refund arising from pre-petition income qualified as “projected disposable income.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.