In Re Williams

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the debtor’s IRA was not excluded because it was not a “trust” within the meaning of § 541(e)(2)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In Re Egan
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2011-08-30· cited 13×
• In re Drapeau
  D. Massachusetts· 2013-01-08· cited 12×
• Hill v. Dobin
  D. New Jersey· 2006-12-04· cited 5×
• Skiba v. Gould (In Re Gould)
  W.D. Pennsylvania· 2005-04-12· cited 5×
• In Re Haney
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2004-10-21· cited 5×
• Skiba v. Gould
  W.D. Pennsylvania· 2005-08-05· cited 3×