In Re Slaughter

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “[ajlthough there is no express statutory prohibition preventing direct payments, the presumption has always been for distribution made by the trustee”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In Re Perez
  S.D. Texas· 2006-03-23· cited 36×
• Perez v. Peake
  S.D. Texas· 2007-07-19· cited 24×
• Barber v. Griffin (In Re Barber)
  D. Kansas· 1996-01-29· cited 20×
• In Re McCann
  N.D. New York· 1996-12-09· cited 6×
• In Re Breeding
  E.D. Arkansas· 2007-05-14· cited 4×
• In Re Jennings
  W.D. Missouri· 1995-12-29· cited 1×
• In Re Lopez
  C.D. California· 2006-10-03· cited 1×
• In re Ayodele
  E.D. North Carolina· 2018-08-28

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• In the Matter of John W. Foster, Jr. And Myrtha D. Foster, Debtors. John W. Foster, Jr., and Myrtha D. Foster v. William Heitkamp, Trustee
  Fifth Circuit· 1982-03-01· cited 127×
• United States v. Harlan Arnold and Dorene Arnold
  Sixth Circuit· 1989-08-18· cited 76×
• Matter of Pianowski
  W.D. Michigan· 1988-10-25· cited 35×
• Matter of Harris
  D. Nebraska· 1989-06-21· cited 25×