Hebbring v. U.S. Trustee, 463 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 2006)
          The Bankruptcy Code does not per se disallow voluntary contributions to a retirement plan as a reasonably necessary expense in calculating disposable income. Courts must examine the totality of the circumstances on a case-by-case basis, including age and financial circumstances. Debtor here only owed about $12,000 in unsecured debt and was only 33 years old.

In re Khachikyan, 335 B.R. 121 (9th Cir. BAP 2005)
          Debtor’s filing of a chapter 7 case 17 months after accumulating about $120,000 in credit card debt is not a form of abuse that should overcome the presumption in favor of chapter 7 relief.

In re Voelkel, 322 B.R. 138 (9th Cir. BAP 2005)
          Bankruptcy court applied wrong standard in dismissing chapter 7 case for substantial abuse. Abuse must be clear, and debtor is not required to live at a subsidence level.

In re Price, 353 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2004)
          1. Real estate mortgages are included in the calculation of consumer debt under this section, regardless of whether they are to be discharged; 2. although the ability to pay debts in a chapter 13 case would, standing alone, justify dismissal under this section, it is not a per se rule. It is merely the most important consideration.

In re Harris, 279 B.R. 254 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2002)
          Evidence failed to establish substantial abuse under § 707(b)

In re Gomes, 220 B.R. 84 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1998) - 707(b)
          Debtors’ ability to repay 43 percent of unsecured debt under three-year chapter 13 plan supported dismissal of Chapter 7 case for substantial abuse.

In re Kelly, 841 F.2d 908 (9th Cir. 1988) - § 707(b)
          A finding that debtors are able to repay their debts as they came due or to fund a Chapter 13 plan = substantial abuse. Debtors had paid all unsecured debt prepetition except judgment for fraud. Court held mortgage debt = consumer debt.