green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.5 score
“section 110(c) is an express statutory requirement that a petition preparer's ssn be placed upon the document prepared for filing.”
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Coy
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
section 110(c) is an express statutory requirement that a petition preparer's ssn be placed upon the document prepared for filing.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Moffett
... 110 was enacted to remedy what was perceived to be widespread fraud and unauthorized practice of law in the bpp industry.
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Brummitt
See Ferm v. United States Trustee (In re Rausch), 194 F.3d 954, 959-960 (9th Cir.1999), cert. denied 528 U.S. 1189 , 120 S.Ct. 1244 , 146 L.Ed.2d 102 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
McDow v. We the People Forms & Service Centers, Inc. (In Re Douglas)
See Ferm v. U.S. Trustee (In re Crawford), 194 F.3d 954 , (9th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1189 , 120 S.Ct. 1244 , 146 L.Ed.2d 102 (2000) (statute requiring petition preparers to include their social security numbers on all documents filed with bankruptcy court did not violate preparer’s right to equal protection); Scott v. U.S. Trustee (In re Doser), 292 B.R. 652 (D.Idaho 2003) (statute did not unconstitutionally restrict petition preparer’s First Amendment rights); Ferm v. U.S. Trustee (In re Crowe), 243 B.R. 43 (9th Cir. BAP 2000), aff'd, 246 F.3d 673 (9th Cir.2000) (injunction is…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McDow v. Skinner (In Re Jay)
See also In re Crawford, 194 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1189 , 120 S.Ct. 1244 , 146 L.Ed.2d 102 (2000); In re Moffett, 263 B.R. 805, 812-13 (Bankr.W.D.Ky.2001); In re Farness, 244 B.R. 464, 467 (Bankr.D.Idaho 2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Evans
See also In re Crawford, 194 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1189 , 120 S.Ct. 1244 , 146 L.Ed.2d 102 (2000); In re Moffett, 263 B.R. 805, 812-13 (Bankr.W.D.Ky.2001); In re Farness, 244 B.R. 464, 467 (Bankr.D.Idaho 2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hannigan v. Marshall (In Re Bonarrigo)
See In re Kaitangian, 218 B.R. 102 (Bankr.S.D.Cal.1998) (holding that Section 110 did not violate the preparer’s equal protection right to pursue his chosen calling because the right to pursue a calling as a bankruptcy petition preparer is not a “fundamental right” for equal protection purposes); In re Adams, 214 B.R. 212 (9th Cir. BAP 1997) (finding that Section 110 did not interfere with a fundamental right); and In re Rausch, 213 B.R. 364 (D.Nev.1997), affirmed, 194 F.3d 954 (9th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1189 , 120 S.Ct. 1244 , 146 L.Ed.2d 102 (2000); see also, In re Crawford…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Dick
v.
Commerce Bancshares, Inc.
v.
Commerce Bancshares, Inc.
No. 99-1114.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 28, 2000.
Published
Citer courts: M.D. Florida (1) · W.D. Kentucky (1)
App. Ct. Ill, 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.