looking" approach could be used in calculating "projected disposable
income" (PDI) under 11 U.S.C.S. § 1325(b)(1)(B) as courts had discretion
to account for known or virtually certain changes in a debtor's income. Use of
Chapter 13 debtor's current income, not an inflated figure due to a prior
one-time employer buyout, was affirmed.
Counsel: Jan Hamilton argued the cause for the petitioner.
Sarah Harrington argued the cause for the petitioner
as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court.
Thomas C. Goldstein argued the cause for the
Judges: ALITO, J., delivered
the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, KENNEDY, THOMAS,
GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting
can view the enhanced version of
Hamilton v. Lanning
can view the free, unenhanced version of Hamilton v. Lanning on lexisONE's Free Case Law
news item: High Court Adopts Forward-Looking Method Of Calculating