In Re Cox

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that an analysis of fairness was unnecessary because 1322(b)(5) “prevents a finding of unfair discrimination in this ease as a matter of law,” despite the court’s insistence that 1322(b)(1) applied
• while debtors' proposal to pay nondischargeable student loans outside their plan may be discriminatory, it is not unfair since such treatment is specifically allowed by § 1322(b)(5)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In Re Sullivan
  W.D. Texas· 1996-03-20· cited 31×
• In Re Williams
  W.D. Tennessee· 2000-07-27· cited 28×
• In Re Simmons
  N.D. Texas· 2003-02-04· cited 27×
• In Re Chandler
  D. New Hampshire· 1997-07-07· cited 27×
• Labib-Kiyarash v. McDonald (In Re Labib-Kiyarash)
  Ninth Circuit· 2001-12-04· cited 17×
• In Re Colley
  M.D. Florida· 2000-10-30· cited 12×
• In re Engen
  D. Kansas· 2016-12-13· cited 12×
• In Re Delauder
  E.D. Virginia· 1995-11-28· cited 9×
• In Re Edmonds
  E.D. Wisconsin· 2010-11-05· cited 8×
• In Re Abaunza
  S.D. Florida· 2011-06-02· cited 8×
• In Re Boscaccy
  N.D. Mississippi· 2010-10-20· cited 8×
• In re Miller
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2013-11-14· cited 8×
• In Re Ford
  W.D. Tennessee· 1998-06-24· cited 4×
• In re Precise
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2013-06-24· cited 4×
• In re Jordahl
  D. Minnesota· 2014-08-27· cited 3×