In Re Hill

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “Congress certainly could have written ‘shall . . .’, but instead Congress wrote ‘may’, which grants this Court discretion.”
• stating that “Congress certainly could have written ‘shall . . .’, but instead Congress wrote ‘may’, which grants this Court discretion.”
• the mandate in § 1322(d) that the plan cannot provide for payments over 60 months is a requirement for confirmation, rather than cause to dismiss after confirmation
• “Congress certainly could have written ‘shall convert or dismiss’, but instead Congress wrote ‘may’, which grants this Court discretion to decide whether to dismiss even in the face of a material breach.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Paul Klaas v.
  Third Circuit· 2017-06-01· cited 33×
• In re: Steven Patrick Schlegel Joanne Marie Schlegel
  Ninth Circuit· 2015-02-25· cited 29×
• Winnecour v. Klaas (In re Klaas)
  W.D. Pennsylvania· 2015-06-04· cited 3×
• Shovlin v. Klaas (In re Klaas)
  W.D. Pennsylvania· 2016-03-01· cited 2×
• In re Brian T.
  E.D. New York· 2017-08-14· cited 2×
• Porenta v. Porenta
  Utah Supreme Court· 2017-11-15· cited 1×