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.

• “It appears that Congress intended not to exempt 23 traceable assets under § 522(d)(10) because it did not 24 explicitly do so. The fact that such language is contained in 25 § 522(d)(11) underscores that Congress knew how to include 26 traceable assets in § 522(d
• “It appears that Congress intended not to exempt 23 traceable assets under § 522(d)(10) because it did not 24 explicitly do so. The fact that such language is contained in 25 § 522(d)(11) underscores that Congress knew how to include 26 traceable assets in § 522(d

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Sanders v. Sanders
  Supreme Judicial Court of Maine· 1998-05-06· cited 13×
• Makoroff v. Panza (In Re Panza)
  W.D. Pennsylvania· 1998-03-25· cited 9×
• In re McFarland
  S.D. Georgia· 2012-09-29· cited 9×
• In re Hanh Hieu Dang
  W.D. Michigan· 2012-06-13· cited 8×
• Carr v. Arellano (In re Arellano)
  M.D. Pennsylvania· 2015-01-06· cited 8×
• In Re Sanchez
  W.D. Michigan· 2007-01-31· cited 5×
• In re Greenly
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2012-10-12· cited 5×
• In re Wade
  District of Columbia· 2012-02-17· cited 3×
• In Re Wyman
  D. Massachusetts· 2010-09-27· cited 1×
• In Re Schena
  D. New Mexico· 2010-10-14· cited 1×
• In re Apfel
  E.D. Virginia· 2017-02-16

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Lasich v. Estate of Wickstrom (In Re Wickstrom)
  W.D. Michigan· 1990-04-20· cited 54×
• In Re Hall
  W.D. Michigan· 1993-02-18· cited 50×
• In Re LaBelle
  D. Maine· 1982-03-01· cited 21×
• Casarow v. Evans (In Re Evans)
  D. New Jersey· 1983-04-26· cited 18×
• In Re Albrecht
  D. Montana· 1988-08-30· cited 8×
• In Re Lambert
  W.D. Michigan· 1981-03-12· cited 7×