Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 94 BR 144 - In Re Storberg

In Re Storberg’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
June 2017
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Leser Jj Mickelson v. J Leser K, McDonald v. Sperna (In Re Sperna) (1994)

2 federal appellate · 1 district ·

2801988199020002010decided

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. § 1122 · 11 U.S.C. § 1322 · 11 U.S.C. § 1327 · 11 U.S.C. § 1328 · 11 U.S.C. § 362 · 11 U.S.C. § 523 · 42 U.S.C. § 652 (§ 452 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Nelson v. Easley (In Re Easley) · Matter of Curtis · In Re Dziedzic · In Re Davidson · In Re Haag

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

  1. “(1) designate a class or classes of unsecured claims, as provided in section 1122 of this title, but may not discriminate unfairly against any class so designated; however, such plan may treat claims for a consumer debt of the debtor if an individual is liable on such consumer debt with the debtor differently than other unsecured claims.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) Whether the discrimination has a reasonable basis; (2) Whether the debtor can carry out a plan without such discrimination; (3) Whether such discrimination is proposed in good faith; and (4) The treatment of the class discriminated against.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “by allowing for separate classes of unsecured claims, Congress anticipated some discrimination, otherwise separate classes would have no significance. It is only unfair discrimination that is prohibited.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.