Topic: clear expression of congressional intent · Go Syfert
← All topics

Topic #36691

3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 9 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Lomas Mortgage, Inc. v. Esperandieu & Antonine Louis.

#Case FlagCanonical passage Citers
1 Lomas Mortgage, Inc. v. Esperandieu & Antonine Louis Anchor
ca1 · 1996
green “clear expression of congressional intent” 3
2 Adebanjo v. Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB (In Re Adebanjo)
ctb · 1994
green “protects claims secured only by a security interest in real property that is the debtor's principal residence, not real property that includes or contains the debtor's principal residence, and not real property on which the debtor resides.” 3
3 Ford Consumer Finance Co. v. Maddaloni (In Re Maddaloni)
ctd · 1998
green “the use of 'is' without any modifier (e.g., 'in whole' or 'in part') does not evince an intent by congress to apply the antimodification provision to real property that includes, but is more than, a debtor's residence.” 3

A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.

← Caselaw search · Hot / Trending / Newly red · Brief Check