Requiring formal written procedures for plan amendments
The pages courts cite for it
- Cited for: Requiring formal written procedures for plan amendments
- Cited for: Questioning modification of plan after long delay
- Cited for: Substantial financial change warranting plan modification
- Cited for: Determining binding effect of past plan changes
- Cited for: Permitting plan modification after all payments are made
- Cited for: Considering effects of plan modification on third parties
- Cited for: Binding effect of confirmed plan and modification requirements
- Cited for: Determining permanency of plan modifications without discharge
Ranked by how often federal courts cite each page. The bar is how citing opinions treated that page (green followed, yellow questioned or limited, red negative); a red or yellow chip is the case’s own overall treatment.
Federal opinions citing these pages
- Nos. 94-1234, 94-1301, 35 F.3d 851 (4th Cir. 1994)
- Gable v. Sweetheart Cup Co., 35 F.3d 851 (4th Cir. 1994)
- In the Matter of Ronald J. Witkowski, Debtor-Appellant, 16 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 1994)
- In re Cook, 148 B.R. 273 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1992)
- Israel Rodriguez, Jr, No. 25-10230 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. May 15, 2026)
- Alice K. Koffah, No. 18-41820 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. Nov. 25, 2025)
- First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. SVB Fin. Grp., No. 25-01044 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2025)
- Carey Macon, No. 09-41631 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. May 2, 2025)
- Vasallo TV Grp., LLC v. Am.-CV Station Grp., Inc., No. 1:24-cv-23011 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 18, 2025)
- Ryan Matthew Ohlinger, No. 24-21356 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2024)
- Pli Y Hmok & Jane H Ngoan Ksor, No. 19-30876 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. June 24, 2024)
- Christine M Sugar, No. 19-04279 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Mar. 28, 2024)
- In re Sloane A. Worth, No. 7:23-cv-03182 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2024)
- In re Peggy Bedsole Proffitt, No. 1:23-cv-00219 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 12, 2024)
- Leo Bernard Huninghake & Mary Lou Huninghake, No. 21-40090 (Bankr. D. Kan. Dec. 15, 2023)
From the opinions citing the top pages above (up to 400 per page are read), most pages cited first, then newest.
Nearest issues
- 536 opinions
- 398 opinions
- 259 opinions
- 248 opinions
- 66 opinions
- 292 opinions
- 98 opinions
- 134 opinions
Filed under: Plan; Administrator; Interpretation
Where else it is alive
Opinions per jurisdiction citing these pages. A span that stops early can mean the doctrine was dropped there.
How this is built: each issue is a set of opinion pages that later courts cite for the same proposition, grouped from what the citing courts wrote. Names are machine-written from those citations; read the cases before relying on them. Search case law