In Re Walters

How courts have described this case

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

• “the Court finds no mention or implication in [the Code] that the amended plan provisions should be applied retroactively. ... the amended plan terms simply become the new terms. The replacement does not alter obligations which have already accrued.”
• “the Court finds no mention or implication in [the Code] that the amended plan provisions should be applied retroactively. ... the amended plan terms simply become the new terms. The replacement does not alter obligations which have already accrued.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In Re Tornheim
  E.D. New York· 1999-10-08· cited 21×
• In Re Vincente
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2001-01-03· cited 9×
• In re Alonso
  D. Idaho· 2017-05-02· cited 7×
• In Re Musselman
  N.D. Indiana· 2005-07-22· cited 2×
• Reyes v. Brown (In re Reyes)
  D. Arizona· 2012-10-16· cited 2×