while it is “true that when a debtor claims a state-created exemption, the exemption’s scope is determined by state law, which may provide that certain types of debtor misconduct warrant denial of the exemption!,]... federal law provides no authority for bankruptcy courts to deny an exemption on a ground not specified in the Code.” Id. at 1196-97. In reaching such a conclusion, the Court acknowledged that its ruling “may produce inequitable results for trustees and creditors in other cases.” Id. at 1198. Even if the Supreme Court’s discourse on statutory construction related to exemptions is dicta not essential to its holding, if such dicta is carefully considered and clearly expressed, it must be followed. See, e.g., Igartúa v. United States, 626 F.3d 592, 605 n.15 (1st Cir. 2010) (<HOLDING>); McCoy v. Mass. Inst. of Tech., 950 F.2d 13,
holding that even though petition for allowance of appeal was pending before the pennsylvania supreme court decision remained binding precedent as long as the decision had not been overturned by our supreme court holding that district court opinion which cites controlling authority that is pending review in florida supreme court allows supreme court to exercise jurisdiction holding that court is bound by prior panels interpretation of supreme court decision holding that we are bound by the theory or reasoning underlying a supreme court case not just by its holding holding carefully considered supreme court dicta though not binding must be accorded great weight and should be treated as authoritative although the supreme court may ignore its own dicta we are a lower court bound by the supreme court internal citations omitted