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 œprojected 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

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)
Petition for certiorari
Amicus brief of the United States

Breaking News

Hamilton v. Lanning

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Briefs and Documents

Merits Briefs

Amicus Briefs

Certiorari-stage documents

Supreme Court appears ready to uphold Tennessee ban on youth transgender care

Justices weigh Holocaust survivors’ right to sue Hungary for compensation

Federal trademark law and doctrines of corporate identity

Court turns down challenges to school admissions, gender support plans, and gun licensing