In re Rosa

How courts have described this case

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

• discussing authorities requiring payment of discharged, stripped-off claims, but concluding that holder of such a claim is not entitled to any payment under so-called \chapter 20\ plan
• no claim allowable for deficiency claim in a chapter 20 case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In re: Michael Paul Free Hak Suk Free
  Ninth Circuit· 2015-12-17· cited 10×
• In re Sandrin
  D. Colorado· 2015-08-28· cited 8×
• In re Woodruff
  N.D. Illinois· 2019-04-30· cited 5×
• In re Hoffman
  D. Idaho· 2015-09-17· cited 2×
• In re Haggerty
  W.D. Michigan· 2019-01-10

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Dewsnup v. Timm
  Supreme Court· 1992-01-15· cited 1,346×
• Johnson v. Home State Bank
  Supreme Court· 1991-06-10· cited 1,263×
• In Re Hill
  S.D. California· 2010-11-29· cited 38×
• Meyer v. Lepe (In Re Lepe)
  Ninth Circuit· 2012-05-09· cited 25×
• In Re Akram
  C.D. California· 2001-03-06· cited 17×
• In re Scantling
  M.D. Florida· 2012-02-24· cited 14×
• In Re Gounder
  E.D. California· 2001-09-24· cited 13×
• In Re Tran
  N.D. California· 2011-08-31· cited 11×
• In re Sweitzer
  D. Maryland· 2012-08-22· cited 7×