Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410, 27 (1992)

Page:   Index   Previous  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27

436

DEWSNUP v. TIMM

Scalia, J., dissenting

alone, for example, unfortunate future litigants will have to pay the price for our expressed neutrality "as to whether the words 'allowed secured claim' have different meaning in other provisions of the Bankruptcy Code." Ante, at 417, n. 3. Having taken this case to resolve uncertainty regarding one provision, we end by spawning confusion regarding scores of others. I respectfully dissent.

Page:   Index   Previous  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27

Last modified: October 4, 2007