# Gerald W. Moody, and Jermoo's Incorporated, Debtors-In-Possession, Plaintiffs v. Amoco Oil Company

> Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · July 3, 1984 · 734 F.2d 1200

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9472192

## Case

- **Full name:** Gerald W. MOODY, and Jermoo’s Incorporated, Debtors-In-Possession, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMOCO OIL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- **Decided:** July 3, 1984
- **Citations:** 734 F.2d 1200
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Evans
- **Judges:** Bauer, Flaum, Evans
- **Cited by:** 267 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9472192

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a determination of the executory nature of a contract was within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court under the temporary jurisdictional system that was the model for the present law
- stating that property of the estate under § 541(a) consists of the debtor’s property rights as of the date of the bankruptcy filing — ‘no more, no less’
- finding that issue of whether lessor agreed to standstill of lease default cure period question of fact
- holding that 11 U.S.C. § 108(b) did not affect the rights granted to a debtor under 11 U.S.C. § 366
- holding that § 108(b) did not affect the rights granted to a debtor under § 366

## Opinion text

TERENCE T. EVANS, District Judge,
dissenting.
Although Judge Flaum’s opinion is meticulous and his reasoning persuasive, the subject matter of this appeal, things like the assumability of certain jobbership contracts under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, is rather dry. Accordingly, rather than further burden the weary reader with a long dissent, I simply note, without expansion, that I believe that the district court was correct when it held that the debtors could not assume the jobber-ship contract. In addition, I believe that under the facts of this case the seeking of injunctive relief under PMPA is so inextricably tied to the creation of the estate in bankruptcy that it compels the conclusion that it is not a related proceeding within the meaning of the interim rule. Thus, I would affirm all aspects of the proceedings conducted below.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9472192. Public record. Not legal advice.