In Re Evans (1985)
green
· 42 citation events
across 13 courts.
Showing the 9 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198320042026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Englander v. Mills (1996)
Orange Brevard Plumbing & Heating Company, 137 So.2d at 206 . 28 . 51 B.R. 47, 50 (Bankr.D.Vt.1985). 29 .
green
In Re Edward Englander (1996)
Co. v. Wilcox, 152 Fla. 889, 891 , 13 So.2d 448, 450 (1943) 20 Tullis v. Tullis, 360 So.2d 375, 377 (Fla.1978) 21 Id., 360 So.2d at 378 22 In re Kuver, 70 B.R. 190, 192-193 (Bank.S.D.Fla.1986); In re Makarewicz, 126 B.R. 127, 128 (Bank.S.D.Fla.1991) 23 In re Kuver, 70 B.R. at 192 24 In re Aliotta, 68 B.R. 281, 282 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1986); In re Rodriguez, 55 B.R. 519 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1985) 25 In re Wierschem, 152 B.R. 345, 347 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1993) (holding that rural property tha…
green
In re Mead (2013)
The purpose of Vermont’s homestead exemption is “to preserve a home for the family; to protect the family as a unit whether it consists of a husband and wife or any other natural person.” In re Evans, 51 B.R. 47, 50 (Bankr.D.Vt.1985).
green
In re Rommer (2016)
Mead, 489 B.R. at 371 ; Evans, 51 B.R. at 51 (“Subdivision is not crucial to the protection of the homestead exemption of the debtor”).
“Subdivision is not crucial to the protection of the homestead exemption of the debtor”
green
Garcia v. Garcia (2013)
Fla. 1986) (adopting a “divisibility test” to determine, on a case-by-case basis, if condominiums, apartment buildings, and similar structures should qualify as homesteads in their entirety, or only in part); In re Evans, 51 B.R. 47, 50-51 (Bankr.
when owners live on one portion of real property and rent other portion to tenants, the homestead exemption is only applicable to the portion on which they live
green
In Re Greene (2011)
The purpose of Vermont’s homestead exemption is “to preserve a home for the family; to protect the family as a unit whether it consists of a husband and wife or any other natural person.” In re Evans, 51 B.R. 47, 50 (Bankr.D.Vt.1985) (citing In re D’Avignon, 34 B.R. 790, 793 (Bankr.D.Vt.1981), aff'd, 34 B.R. 796, 800 (D.Vt. 1982)).
green
In Re Roberge (2004)
See In re Detko, 290 B.R. 494, 500 (Bankr.D.Vt.2003); In re Evans, 51 B.R. 47, 50 (Bankr.D.Vt.1985).
green
In Re Detko (2003)
The purpose of Vermont’s homestead exemption is “to preserve a home for the family; to protect the family as a unit whether it consists of a husband and wife or any other natural person.” In re Evans, 51 B.R. 47, 50 (Bankr.D.Vt.1985) (citing In re D’Avignon, 34 B.R. 790, 793 (Bankr.D.Vt.1981), aff'd, 34 B.R. 796, 800 (D.Vt.1982)).
green
In Re Bradley (2002)
In re Evans, 51 B.R. 47, 50 (Bankr.D.Vt.1985) (interpreting Vermont statutes); In re Hughes, 244 B.R. 805 (Bankr.D.S.D.1999) (interpreting South Dakota constitution).