In Re Sosa

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the “statute is clear and unambiguous”
• dismissing a bankruptcy case 24 when the debtors failed to obtain credit counseling pre-petition while severely criticizing the 25 statute and Congress
• dismissing a bankruptcy case as to 16 both debtors who failed to obtain credit counseling pre-petition – even though one did so post- 17 petition – but referring to the statute as “inane” and other comparable descriptions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In Re Tomco
  W.D. Pennsylvania· 2006-02-27· cited 38×
• In Re Seaman
  E.D. New York· 2006-03-30· cited 31×
• In Re Hess
  D. Vermont· 2006-08-14· cited 24×
• In Re Carey
  M.D. Florida· 2006-05-16· cited 16×
• In Re Elmendorf
  S.D. New York· 2006-07-18· cited 16×
• In Re Hill
  W.D. Louisiana· 2006-09-01· cited 14×
• In Re Ginsberg
  E.D. New York· 2006-11-13· cited 7×
• Keith L. Dixon v. John v. LaBarge
  Eighth Circuit· 2006-02-17