Arnold v. Weast’s Empirical Analysis
869 F.2d 240 · 1989
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 115 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably In the Matter of Ronald J. Witkowski, Debtor-Appellant (1994), Marcelino Barbosa
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
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. § 1322 · 11 U.S.C. § 1328 · 11 U.S.C. § 1329
Relies on Deans v. O'Donnell · Education Assistance Corp. v. Zellner · In Re Moseley · In Re Euerle
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 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) At any time after confirmation of the plan but before the completion of payments under such plan, the plan may be modified, upon request of the debtor ... to— (1) increase or reduce the amount of payments on claims of a particular class provided for by the plan; (2) extend or reduce the time for such payments; or (3) alter the amount of the distribution to a creditor whose claim is provided for by the plan to the extent necessary to take account of any payment of such claim other than under the plan.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Brumm · In Re Banks“[a]lthough it was reasonable to expect Arnold’s income to fluctuate from year to year because it relied so heavily on sales commissions, [the unsecured creditor] should not be expected to have anticipated a $120,000 jump in his income in only two years.” Arnold, 869 F.2d at 243 . Similarly, in Murphy, the Fourth Circuit concluded that”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Bereolos · In re Runnels“(a) At any time after confirmation of the plan but before the completion of payments under-such plan, the plan may be modified, upon request of the debtor, the trustee, or the holder of an allowed unsecured claim, to— (1) increase or reduce the amount of payments on claims of a particular class provided for by the plan; (2) extend or reduce the time for such payments; (3) alter the amount of the distribution to a creditor whose claim is provided for by the plan to the extent necessary to take account of any payment of such claim other than under the plan; or (4) reduce amounts to be paid under the plan by the actual amount expended by the debtor to purchase health insurance for the debtor.... (b) (1) Sections 1322(a), 1322(b), and 1323(c) of this title and the requirements of section 13i25(a) of this title apply to' any modification under subsection (a) of this section. (2) The plan as modified becomes the plan unless, after notice and a hearing, such modification is disapproved. (c) A plan modified under this section may not provide for.payments over a period that expires after the applicable commitment period under section 1325(b)(1)(B) after the time that the first payment under the original confirmed plan was due, unless the court, for cause, approves a longer period, but the court may not approve a period that expires after five years after such time.”
2 later decisions 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.