In Re McCollum

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that it is unlikely that Congress chose to list specific subsections of the Code that would apply to § 1329, but omit § 1325(b) and incorporate it by reference

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In Re Grutsch
  D. Kansas· 2011-06-29· cited 17×
• In re Pautin
  W.D. Texas· 2014-11-25· cited 17×
• In Re Davis
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2008-07-22· cited 16×
• In re Stretcher
  W.D. Texas· 2011-12-14· cited 6×
• In re Brown
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2013-09-26· cited 5×
• In re Burns
  E.D. Louisiana· 2012-10-05· cited 4×
• Shih Chang Hu v. Evergreen of the South, Inc.
  Louisiana Court of Appeal· 2014-05-29· cited 1×