S.D. Texas· 3/23/2006
In Re Perez
Citations
- 339 B.R. 385
- 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 1026
- 2006 WL 760341
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- acknowledging that “the Bankruptcy Code does allow for debtors to bypass the trustee and make payments directly to creditors.”
- acknowledging that, although Chapter 13 bankruptcy could not modify a mortgage lender's rights, the lender was still entitled to adequate protection
- describing how \[a]dequate protection payments to real estate lien holders are not payments made under a proposed plan\
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Jeff Bohm
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
31 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Giesbrecht v. Fitzgerald (In Re Giesbrecht)Ninth Circuit· 2010-04-28· cited 44×
- In Re OrawskyE.D. Pennsylvania· 2008-05-02· cited 33×
- Cohen v. Lopez (In Re Lopez)Ninth Circuit· 2007-08-03· cited 24×
- Perez v. PeakeS.D. Texas· 2007-07-19· cited 24×
- In Re JanssenE.D. Pennsylvania· 2008-11-07· cited 20×
- In re HeinzleW.D. Texas· 2014-05-30· cited 15×
- In re EvansE.D. Virginia· 2016-01-05· cited 12×
- In re CoughlinE.D. New York· 2017-06-15· cited 11×
- In Re DominiqueS.D. Florida· 2007-05-14· cited 10×
- Dukes v. Suncoast Credit Union (In Re Dukes)Eleventh Circuit· 2018-12-06· cited 10×
- Evans v. StackhouseE.D. Virginia· 2017-01-13· cited 10×
- In re GonzalesD. Colorado· 2015-06-09· cited 10×
- In Re PadillaE.D. Pennsylvania· 2007-03-26· cited 8×
- In re Hoyt-KieckhabenD. Colorado· 2016-02-23· cited 8×
- In re SmithS.D. Texas· 2019-04-25· cited 8×
- In Re SandersN.D. Alabama· 2006-04-18· cited 6×
- In Re HenceS.D. Texas· 2006-12-20· cited 5×
- In re CormierD. Massachusetts· 2012-09-27· cited 5×
- Marilyn Marshall v. Edward JohnsonSeventh Circuit· 2024-05-03· cited 4×
- Banks v. Griffin (In Re Griffin)Eighth Circuit· 2006-09-21· cited 3×
Cites
60 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Hartford Underwriters Insurance v. Union Planters Bank, N. A.Supreme Court· 2000-05-30· cited 1,290×
- Norwest Bank Worthington v. AhlersSupreme Court· 1988-03-07· cited 992×
- Nobelman v. American Savings BankSupreme Court· 1993-06-01· cited 868×
- Rake v. WadeSupreme Court· 1993-06-07· cited 431×
- In Re Benjamin Pierce Simmons, Bankrupt. Benjamin Pierce Simmons v. J.T. SavellFifth Circuit· 1985-07-19· cited 288×
- Metropolitan Life Ins. v. Murel Holding Corp.Second Circuit· 1935-03-11· cited 226×
- Ronald E. Grubbs v. Houston First American Savings AssociationFirst Circuit· 1984-04-19· cited 213×
- United States v. Robert B. Sutton and Sutton Investments, Inc.Fifth Circuit· 1986-04-16· cited 195×
- In the Matter of John W. Foster, Jr. And Myrtha D. Foster, Debtors. John W. Foster, Jr., and Myrtha D. Foster v. William Heitkamp, TrusteeFifth Circuit· 1982-03-01· cited 127×
- Unnamed caseFifth Circuit· 1993-10-27· cited 110×
- United States Ex Rel. Farmers Home Administration v. Arnold & Baker Farms (In Re Arnold & Baker Farms)Ninth Circuit· 1994-12-30· cited 77×
- In the Matter of Texas Consumer Finance Corporation, Debtor. First Southwest Corporation v. Texas Consumer Finance CorporationFirst Circuit· 1973-06-22· cited 57×
- Commonwealth State Employees' Retirement Fund v. RoaneE.D. Pennsylvania· 1981-09-11· cited 52×
- In Re EvansE.D. Pennsylvania· 1986-10-28· cited 45×
- In Re BallardE.D. Virginia· 1980-05-14· cited 40×
- Unnamed caseFifth Circuit· 1980-12-08· cited 36×
- In Re ParkerE.D. Tennessee· 1981-12-16· cited 36×
- Matter of PianowskiW.D. Michigan· 1988-10-25· cited 35×
- Stangel v. United States (In Re Stangel)Fifth Circuit· 2000-08-21· cited 31×
- First Bank & Trust v. Gross (In Re Reid)E.D. Texas· 1995-02-28· cited 26×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.