In Re Fleming

How courts have described this case

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

• finding the Code indicates the existence of a stay is not a prerequisite to confirmation under section 1325(a
• “the existence of the automatic stay is not a prerequisite to the confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In Re Lemma
  E.D. New York· 2008-09-29· cited 23×
• In re Smith
  E.D. Tennessee· 2019-02-01· cited 2×
• In Re Hileman
  C.D. California· 2011-06-13· cited 1×

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 1989-02-22· cited 4,657×
• In Re Jupiter
  D. South Carolina· 2006-06-21· cited 32×
• In Re Jumpp
  D. Massachusetts· 2006-06-23· cited 15×
• Kurtzahn v. Sheriff of Benton County (In Re Kurtzahn)
  D. Minnesota· 2006-06-01· cited 7×
• In Re Sullivan
  M.D. Florida· 2005-01-14· cited 7×