In re Kirk

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that Harris did not apply because chapter 13 case was dismissed rather than converted, and § 1326(a)(2) dictated how funds were to be distributed in cases that are dismissed prior to plan confirmation
• explaining that “§ 1326(a)(2) expressly dictates the manner in which a chapter 13 trustee should distribute plan payments if a chapter 13 plan is not confirmed prior to dismissal” and that “[pursuant to § 1326(a)(2
• “The Court agrees with [debtor’s counsel] that the holding in Harris does not apply in a chapter 13 case that has been dismissed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Jeffrey P. White & Associates, P.C. v. Fessenden (Wheaton)
  First Circuit· 2016-04-14· cited 32×
• In re Brandon
  D. Maryland· 2015-09-10· cited 11×
• In re Merovich
  M.D. Pennsylvania· 2016-04-06· cited 4×
• In re Fairnot
  E.D. Michigan· 2017-08-02· cited 2×
• Wehrwein v. Roach (In re Kerr)
  N.D. Indiana· 2017-06-14· cited 1×

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Harris v. Viegelahn
  Supreme Court· 2015-05-18· cited 183×
• Massachusetts v. Pappalardo (In Re Steenstra)
  First Circuit· 2004-03-31· cited 25×
• In Re Inyamah
  S.D. Ohio· 2007-11-20· cited 14×
• Mary Viegelahn v. Charles Harris, III
  Fifth Circuit· 2014-07-07· cited 9×