In Re Underhill

How courts have described this case

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

• “Termination or lack of the § 362(a) stay may impact a chapter 13 plan but does not per se preclude confirmation of a plan.”
• “ ‘Unless expressly preserved in the plan or the order confirming the plan, all pre-confirmation agreements and orders concerning the treatment of a claim are superseded by the terms and provisions of the confirmed plan.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In re Rodriguez
  D. New Mexico· 2013-02-11· cited 16×
• In re Ford
  D. South Carolina· 2014-10-29· cited 5×
• In re Crawford
  D. South Carolina· 2015-06-08· cited 4×

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• TRW Inc. v. Andrews
  Supreme Court· 2001-11-13· cited 1,407×
• Reiter v. Sonotone Corp.
  Supreme Court· 1979-06-11· cited 1,277×
• Negonsott v. Samuels
  Supreme Court· 1993-02-24· cited 334×
• Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Pueblo of Santa Ana
  Supreme Court· 1985-06-10· cited 233×
• United States v. Stauffer Chemical Company
  Sixth Circuit· 1982-07-07· cited 91×
• United States v. Richman
  Tenth Circuit· 1997-08-26· cited 90×
• Diviney v. Nationsbank of Texas (In Re Diviney)
  Tenth Circuit· 1998-10-16· cited 79×
• Alexander v. Hardeman (In Re Alexander)
  Tenth Circuit· 2007-03-13· cited 39×
• Emery L. Negonsott v. Harold Samuels and the Attorney General of the State of Kansas
  Tenth Circuit· 1991-05-08· cited 23×
• In Re Tomasini
  D. Utah· 2006-03-08· cited 20×
• Educational Credit Management Corp. v. Mersmann (In Re Mersmann)
  Tenth Circuit· 2007-09-24· cited 18×