In Re Norris

How courts have described this case

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

• extension of plan to pay priority and secured claims where debtors are unable to do so within 36 months constitutes cause provided they are applying all available disposable income to the plan
• extension of plan to pay priority and secured claims where debtors are unable to do so within 36 months constitutes cause provided they are applying all available disposable income to the plan
• extension of plan to pay priority and secured claims where debtors are unable to do so within 36 months constitutes cause provided they are applying all available disposable income to the plan
• extension of plan to pay priority and secured claims where debtors are unable to do so within 36 months constitutes cause provided they are applying all available disposable income to the plan
• “Debtors are receiving the benefit of extending their plan payments. They cannot receive this grant, which allows them to pay off their priority and secured debts, without also accepting the burden of committing all of their disposable income to fund their plan.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Hildebrand v. Petro (In Re Petro)
  Sixth Circuit· 2008-10-17· cited 33×
• Villanueva v. Dowell (In Re Villanueva)
  Ninth Circuit· 2002-02-26· cited 21×
• In Re McCarty
  N.D. Ohio· 2007-09-28· cited 12×
• McKinney v. Russell
  M.D. Alabama· 2017-02-08· cited 9×
• In Re Quinn
  D. Delaware· 2009-12-29· cited 4×
• In re: Shawn Eugene Petro v.
  Sixth Circuit· 2008-10-17

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Bank of Marin v. England
  Supreme Court· 1966-12-05· cited 503×
• In Re Fries
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 1986-12-29· cited 76×
• In Re Masterson
  D. New Hampshire· 1992-10-08· cited 8×