Hamilton v. Lanning
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08-998 | 10th Cir. | 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 debtor "projected? 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.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Shakespeare in bankruptcy (Anna Christensen, June 8, 2010)
- Court skeptical of strict mechanical test (Erin Miller, March 25, 2010)
- Computing "disposable income" for debt payments (Erin Miller, March 14, 2010)
Briefs and Documents
Merits Briefs
- Brief for Petitioner Jan Hamilton, Chapter 13 Trustee
- Brief for Respondent Stephanie Kay Lanning
- Reply Brief for Petitioner Jan Hamilton, Chapter 13 Trustee
Amicus Briefs
- 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
Certiorari-stage documents
- Opinion below (10th Circuit)
Merits Briefs
- Brief for Petitioner Jan Hamilton, Chapter 13 Trustee
- Brief for Respondent Stephanie Kay Lanning
- Reply Brief for Petitioner Jan Hamilton, Chapter 13 Trustee
Amicus Briefs
- 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
[##CERT-STAGE##]