In re Kofford stands for the premise that payments have to go up when direct pay car loans or 401k loans.

Based on a review of the case, it may not apply in 100% cases and maybe $0 return to unsecured cases for below median Debtors, particularly if there is large priority debt.

The case is here.

Not if it is cable television:  In Re Darby, 470 F.3d 573 (5th Circuit)

Dicta:  

The word "utility" as it is used in § 366 is not defined within the statute, but some guidance is provided by the legislative history of the provision. Both the House Judiciary Report and the Senate Report on the provision state in relevant part:

This section gives debtors protection from a cut-off of service by a utility because of the filing of a bankruptcy case. This section is intended to cover utilities that have some special position with respect to the debtor, such as an electric company, gas supplier, or telephone company that is a monopoly in the area so that the debtor cannot easily obtain comparable service from another utility.

More interesting argument if it is Internet or telephone.  Wireless providers?  Comparing services available for the debtor.  High speed internet may essentially be a monopoly.  An additional argument could be made if it is a regulated industry.

Means test—Current monthly income: A debtor's income need only be received, not both received and earned, during the applicable six-month lookback period in order to constitute "current monthly income" under Code § 101(10A). In re Schuldt, 2015 WL 1010882 (Bankr. W.D. Mich., Feb. 13, 2015) (case no. 1:14-bk-7149). 

Simultaneous cases: On an issue on which the courts are divided, the court held that there is no per se prohibition of a debtor's having simultaneous open bankruptcy cases, although the second case is always subject to a requirement of good faith. However, courts do agree that a debtor may not file a second bankruptcy case before entry of the discharge order in the first case, and that a debtor may not seek to treat the same debt in two pending bankruptcy cases. In re Montes, --- B.R. ----, 2015 WL 849259 (Bankr. D. N.M., Feb. 25, 2015) (case no. 1:14-bk-13043)

Stripping unsecured lien—Federal tax lien: A federal tax lien attaches to a debtor's real and personal property; in two cases, the courts disagreed as to whether a Chapter 7 debtor (in a circuit that allows Chapter 7 debtors to strip wholly-unsecured liens) may strip a tax lien from the debtor's home, while the lien remains attached to the debtor's personal property, where there is no equity in the home to support the lien. Compare In re Gonzon, 2015 WL 535482 (Bankr. S.D. Fla., Feb. 5, 2015) (adv. proc. no. 1:14-ap-1584) (lien may be stripped) with In re Blackburn, 525 B.R. 153 (Bankr. N.D. Fla., Feb. 3, 2015) (case no. 3:12-bk-31658) (lien may not be stripped).

This is an Arkansas case that holds that the seizure of business assets is not prohibited by the automatic stay or the co-debtor stay when an individual files.

So a local attorney asked for the Dugan case -- maybe it was this one on whether a non-filing spouse's income should be included in the means test if the income is not used for household purposes.