In Re Clark

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the 30-day time limit does not apply to a motion by the UST under § 707(b)(3)
• holding that the date “will be even more certain if it means the first date set for the meeting of creditors can be deter-mined from the docket and the notices sent by the clerk’s office”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Fokkena v. Draisey (In Re Draisey)
  Eighth Circuit· 2008-10-16· cited 7×
• In Re Wise
  D. Vermont· 2011-07-25· cited 5×
• In re Persaud
  E.D. New York· 2013-02-04· cited 5×
• In Re Jasper
  E.D. Virginia· 2009-01-13· cited 2×
• Habbo Fokkena v. Geoff Draisey
  Eighth Circuit· 2008-10-16
• In re Dinardo
  D. Connecticut· 2016-10-04

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• In Re dePellegrini
  S.D. Ohio· 2007-04-26· cited 27×
• In Re DiGregorio
  N.D. Illinois· 1995-10-11· cited 23×
• In Re Spurgeon
  E.D. Tennessee· 2007-10-10· cited 20×
• In Re Robertson
  D. Minnesota· 2007-07-03· cited 17×
• In Re Byrne
  W.D. Arkansas· 2007-09-24· cited 12×
• In Re Perrotta
  D. New Hampshire· 2007-11-21· cited 12×
• Turner v. Close (In Re Close)
  D. Kansas· 2008-03-28· cited 9×