Sticka v. Applebaum (In Re Applebaum)

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that California’s bankruptcy-only exemption statute did not violate the Equal Protection Clause even though the exemptions differed from exemptions that California accorded to debtors not in bankruptcy
• finding that California's bankruptcy-only exemptions did not violate the Supremacy Clause
• finding \no conflict between the purpose and goals of the Bankruptcy Code and the California bankruptcy-only exemption statute” and stating that \[sjimply because the exemptions differ from the federal exemptions (or from its non-bankruptcy counterpart
• “[F]ed-eral bankruptcy law is not so pervasive, nor is the federal interest so dominant, as to wholly preclude state legislation in the area.”
• “California’s bankruptcy-only exemption statute ... does not violate the Uniformity Clause.”
• California’s bankruptcy-specific exemptions did not violate the Uniformity Clause

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).