Coffin v. eCast Settlement Corp. (In Re Coffin)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting, in general, that orders denying confirmation of a Chapter 13 reorganization plan are interlocutory, but holding that the order in that case satisfied the requirements in 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3
• noting, in general, that orders denying confirmation of a Chapter 13 reorganization plan are interlocutory, but holding that the order in that case satisfied the requirements in 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3
• term “applicable” as used in the “means test” had to be contrasted with the term “actual” as used elsewhere in the same provision, and did not require that debtor actually have such an expense.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).