In Re Kearney

How courts have described this case

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

• collecting cases and stating that the majority rule is that the projected disposable income test does not apply to modification

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In Re Grutsch
  D. Kansas· 2011-06-29· cited 17×
• In re Campbell
  D. New Mexico· 2013-09-20· cited 16×
• In Re Heideker
  M.D. Florida· 2011-06-02· cited 11×
• In re McAllister
  N.D. Georgia· 2014-04-03· cited 10×
• In re Swain
  E.D. Virginia· 2014-04-01· cited 6×
• In re Cormier
  D. Massachusetts· 2012-09-27· cited 5×
• In re Fulmer
  M.D. Alabama· 2015-07-08· cited 5×
• In re Barnes
  E.D. Wisconsin· 2014-03-17

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• In the Matter of Robert John Love, Debtor-Appellant
  Seventh Circuit· 1992-02-26· cited 363×
• Sunahara v. Burchard (In Re Sunahara)
  Ninth Circuit· 2005-06-27· cited 75×
• In Re Turner
  Seventh Circuit· 2009-07-20· cited 48×
• In Re Williams
  D. Colorado· 2008-09-12· cited 40×
• In Re Wetzel
  E.D. Wisconsin· 2008-01-29· cited 22×
• In Re Golek
  N.D. Illinois· 2004-04-15· cited 20×
• In Re King
  S.D. Illinois· 2010-10-20· cited 20×
• In Re McCray
  S.D. Georgia· 1994-09-15· cited 15×
• In Re Young
  E.D. Wisconsin· 2007-07-02· cited 14×
• In Re Spraggins
  E.D. Wisconsin· 2008-04-11· cited 12×
• In Re Smith
  W.D. Missouri· 2005-08-22· cited 6×
• In Re Stimac
  E.D. Wisconsin· 2007-03-29· cited 4×