In re Prewitt

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that § 506(a)(2) is consistent with Rash because it defines \replacement value of collateral securing a consumer debt ... as the price a retail merchant would charge for the property itself-not for tangential services that will not be actually performed\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• 21st Mortgage Corporation v. Kayla Glenn
  Fifth Circuit· 2018-08-13· cited 25×
• In re Sweeney
  E.D. North Carolina· 2016-08-18· cited 1×
• In re Denaro
  W.D. New York· 2016-08-05
• In re Solis
  W.D. Texas· 2016-04-15

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Associates Commercial Corp. v. Rash
  Supreme Court· 1997-06-16· cited 471×
• In Re Gustav Schaefer Co.
  Sixth Circuit· 1939-04-13· cited 32×
• In Re Smith
  S.D. Ohio· 2001-03-30· cited 20×
• In re Creekside Senior Apartments, LP
  Sixth Circuit· 2012-06-29· cited 20×
• In Re Sneijder
  S.D. New York· 2009-07-02· cited 19×
• Holcomb Health Care Services, LLC v. Quart Limited, LLC (In Re Holcomb Health Care Services, LLC)
  M.D. Tennessee· 2004-12-30· cited 12×
• In Re Panther Mountain Land Development, LLC
  E.D. Arkansas· 2010-10-22· cited 11×
• Wright v. Chase (In Re Wright)
  E.D. New York· 2011-12-02· cited 8×