Cluster 1853047
green
· 18 citation events
across 4 courts.
Showing the 12 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
green
In re Maine (2011)
Further, “Ohio exemption provisions are to be construed liberally in favor of the debtor and a debtor’s dependents and any doubt in interpretation should be in favor of granting the exemption.” Id. at 148 and In re Jackson, 348 B.R. 771, 772 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2006), quoting In re Lewis, 327 B.R. 645, 648 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2005).
green
In Re Cook (2009)
Further, “Ohio exemptions provisions are to be construed liberally in favor of the debtor and a debtor’s dependents and any doubt in interpretation should be in favor of granting the exemption.” Id. at 148 and In re Jackson, 348 B.R. 771, 772 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2006), quoting In re Lewis, 327 B.R. 645, 648 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2005).
green
In re: Diann Colbert v. (2007)
In re Lewis, 327 B.R. 645, 648 (Bankr.
green
In re: Shah Alam v. (2006)
Ohio 2005) (“‘Ohio exemption provisions are to be construed liberally in favor of the debtor and a debtor’s dependents and any -6- doubt in interpretation should be in favor of granting the exemption.’”) (quoting In re Lewis, 327 B.R. 645, 648 (Bankr.
green
Baumgart v. Alam (In Re Alam) (2006)
A statutory provision in the nature of an exception to the general law on the subject of exemptions should be given a strict construction.’ ” (citation omitted)); In re Oglesby, 333 B.R. 788, 791 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2005) (“ ‘Ohio exemption provisions are to be construed liberally in favor of the debtor and a debtor’s dependents and any doubt in interpretation should be in favor of granting the exemption.’ ”) (quoting In re Lewis, 327 B.R. 645, 648 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2005)); In re …
green
In Re Domanski (2006)
Given the reasonableness of both interpretations, the law requires this Court to err on the side of the Debtor: “[i]t is a settled law that Ohio exemption provisions are to be construed liberally in favor of the *829 debtor ... and any doubt in interpretation should be in favor of granting the exemption.” In re Lewis, 327 B.R. 645, 648 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2005).
green
In Re Jackson (2006)
Consistent with well established authority, this court has noted, “Ohio exemptions provisions are to be construed liberally in favor of the debt- or and a debtor’s dependents and any doubt in interpretation should be in favor of granting the exemption.” In re Lewis, 327 B.R. 645, 648 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2005). *773 Ohio Revised Code § 2106.13(A) The Trustee argues that the funds are not exempt under the probate statute, Ohio Revised Code § 2106.13(A) and/or the exemption statute…
green
In re Frederick (2013)
See In re Lewis, 327 B.R. 645 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2005); In re North, 108 B.R. 180 (Bankr.
green
In Re Oglesby (2005)
See Doc. 68. *791 The Supreme Court of Ohio has consistently held when the language of an Ohio statute is “clear and definite, it must be applied as written.” State v. Anthony, 96 Ohio St.3d 173, 175 , 772 N.E.2d 1167, 1170 (2002) Moreover, as this court has recently noted, “[i]t is a settled law in Ohio that Ohio exemption provisions are to be construed liberally in favor of the debtor and a debtor’s dependents and any doubt in interpretation should be in favor of granting …
green
In re: William Schramm v. (2010)
Id.; see also In re Lewis, 327 B.R. 645, 650 (Bankr.
agreeing with Heins
green
Menninger v. Schramm (In Re Schramm) (2010)
Id.; see also In re Lewis, 327 B.R. 645, 650 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2005) (agreeing with Heins).
agreeing with Heins
green
In Re Kimble (2006)
See also In re Oglesby, 333 B.R. 788, 791 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2005) (“ ‘Ohio exemption provisions are to be construed liberally in favor of the debtor and a debtor’s dependents and any doubt in interpretation should be in favor of granting the exemption.’ ”) (quoting In re Lewis, 327 B.R. 645, 648 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2005)); In re Wycuff, 332 B.R. 297, 300 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 2005) (construing exemption statute liberally is necessary “to effectuate [the statute’s] remedial purpose: affo…