Hamilton v. Lanning
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Mar 22, 2010
|Jun 7, 2010||8-1||Alito||OT 2009|
Disclosure: Akin Gump represented the respondent in this case.
Holding: The Court held that a debtorâ€™s â€œprojectedâ€ income refers to future calculations based on actual income rather than those based on past income over a period of years.
Judgment: Affirmed, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito on June 7, 2010. Justice Scalia dissented.
- Shakespeare in bankruptcy
- Court skeptical of strict mechanical test
- Computing "disposable income" for debt payments
Briefs and Documents
- Brief for Petitioner Jan Hamilton, Chapter 13 Trustee
- Brief for Respondent Stephanie Kay Lanning
- Reply Brief for Petitioner Jan Hamilton, Chapter 13 Trustee
- Brief for the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys in Support of Neither Party
- Brief for Professor Ned W. Waxman in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the United States in Support of the Responden