Case law

Newark Watershed Conservation & Development Corp. v. Watkins-Brashear (In re Newark Watershed Conservation & Development Corp.)

560 B.R. 129 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 21, 2016

N.J.S.A. § 59:3-14(a) (“Public employee immunity; exception”) establishes a narrow exception to immunity: Nothing in this act shall exonerate a public employee from liability if it is established that his conduct was outside … Mason, 854 F.Supp. 1520, 1530-32 (D.Wyo.1994), that the defendant claiming the qualified immunity has the burden of proof.

In Re Raphael

230 B.R. 657 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 4, 1999

Although the question of what constitutes “the State” or qualifies as an arm or instrumentality of the state is a question of federal law, Christy v. … They are established by individual municipalities, each of which has a separate corporate existence and does not have sovereign immunity protection under the Eleventh Amendment.

Kish v. Farmer (In Re Kish)

238 B.R. 271 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 30, 1999

The district court also raised the issue of the DMV’s Eleventh Amendment immunity sua sponte. … The term “actual pecuniary loss” clearly connotes measurable damages from particular instances of wrongdoing.

Stanziale v. New Jersey Ex Rel. Commissioner of Transportation (In Re Theobald Industries, Inc.)

53 B.R. 506 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 21, 1984

Congress clearly expressed an intent to abrogate the sovereign immunity of states so as to permit a debtor to resolve state tax matters in the bankruptcy court, leading this Court to conclude that it has jurisdiction over … Given the title of § 106, “Waiver of sovereign immunity,” and the language of § 106[b], the Court finds that Congress clearly intended to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states in proceedings to offset allowed governmental

Subranni v. Navajo Times Publishing Co. (In re Group Communications, Inc.)

568 B.R. 616 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 29, 2016

Another factor that distinguishes an organization entitled to tribal sovereign immunity (as opposed to a mere business interest of a tribe) is that the tribal council establishes the organization pursuant to its powers of … Auth., 144 F.3d 581, 583 (8th Cir. 1998) (concluding that a housing authority “established by a tribal council pursuant to its powers of self-government” is a tribal agency entitled to tribal sovereign immunity).

In Re Brown

244 B.R. 62 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 3, 2000

That district court rulings are entitled to substantial deference by bankruptcy courts is well established. See, e.g., In re Jason Realty, L.P., 59 F.3d 423 , 429 n. 2 (3d Cir.1995). … Sovereign Immunity.

Matter of Kent

190 B.R. 196 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 5, 1995

That a motor vehicle surcharge constitutes a debt, rather than “an additional insurance premium”, has been clearly established. Lugo v. … The JUA was established as a non-profit organization. N.J.S.A. 17:30E^4.

Campbell Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Service (In Re Campbell Enterprises, Inc.)

66 B.R. 200 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 4, 1986

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and § 157, which sections were created by the Act, this court clearly retains subject matter jurisdiction over the instant proceeding. … The Regan court established that the plaintiff before it lacked an alternative means to challenge the injunction proceeding, and thus the court did not apply the two-part test established in Enochs .

In Re Burkhardt

220 B.R. 837 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · May 13, 1998

Because discharging a debt would clearly have such an impact, appellant’s argument must fail.” Id. (emphasis added). … In relevant part, the Court interpreted the application of the Eleventh Amendment as follows: This court’s decisions thus establish that “an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens

Pulley v. Legreide (In Re Pulley)

295 B.R. 28 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 25, 2003

As to debt immunity, while Kish III considers the State to have partially immunized itself from MTF debts, 33 this court is more inclined to see that immunity as potentially total. … This would be the case, it is submitted, even if the liquidating insurer were a clearly private enterprise.

In Re Christie

218 B.R. 27 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 3, 1998

Richard Christie, FD-001142-86, the Superior Court of New Jersey entered an order on February 13, 1986, establishing a $40.00 per week obligation. … First, the Court determined that the language of the Act indicates that Congress clearly intended to abrogate the State’s immunity. Id.

Bauer v. General Electric Capital Corp. (In re Oncology Associates of Ocean County LLC)

510 B.R. 463 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 10, 2014

principles of sovereign immunity. … of § 544(b), observing that “where there exists a plausible interpretation of a provision that would preserve immunity— even if that interpretation is not the only reading available — that ‘is enough to establish that a

In Re Lamb

179 B.R. 419 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 10, 1994

Clearly, Congress never intended such a result as would prevail here if the [djebtor had his way. … Simply, these factors alone do not clearly establish that his IRA is exempt pursuant to section 522(d)(10)(E).

Kish v. Verniero (In Re Kish)

221 B.R. 118 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · May 22, 1998

The latter situation is clearly a suit for monetary damages for a past violation of federal law. … The doctrine articulated in Ex parte Young was clearly identified by the Supreme Court long before the date of that decision.

Hetzler v. United States (In Re Hetzler)

262 B.R. 47 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 12, 2001

Most courts *51 agree that a document must first qualify as a return under federal income tax law in order to qualify as a return for purposes of section 523. … “Nothing in § 523(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code suggests that a document that does not qualify as a return under the Internal Revenue Code should nonetheless qualify as a return for purposes of bankruptcy discharge.”

Decalcomania Mfg. Corp. v. City of Camden (In Re Decalcomania Mfg. Corp.)

142 B.R. 670 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 19, 1990

New Jersey Turnpike Authority, 268 F.Supp. 568, 574 (D.N.J.1967) (counties and municipalities do not partake of the Eleventh Amendment immunity enjoyed by the states, although they clearly are public bodies and in many cases … Bankruptcy Code, then the Debtor, Decalcomania received “less than a reasonable equivalent value in exchange for such transfer” and that the debtor “became insolvent as a result of such transfer or obligation.” 7 In order to establish

In Re Havens

229 B.R. 613 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 9, 1998

The matters before this court clearly involve matters arising under Title 11 pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 524 (a). Accordingly, this court has general jurisdiction over the Debtors’ claims. B. … The court, upon review of the statutory structure of the JUA, also found that the State, although it initially established the JUA as a independent entity, did not immunize itself from payment of the debts of JUA by virtue

In Re Caola

422 B.R. 13 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 6, 2010

Accordingly, the Court looked to § 1037(c) to determine whether the debtor was qualified to become a debtor under Chapter 13. … Following the reasoning of Marrama , the Court found that “[s]ection 1307 should not be used as an ‘escape hatch’ to provide a debtor with immunity from [her] conduct and avoid the consequences of section 1307(c) and the

DnC America Banking Corp. v. Topcroft, Inc. (In re Topcroft, Inc.)

122 B.R. 235 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 13, 1990

The debtor concedes DnC qualifies as a bank under the applicable New York law defining banks, but asserts it must also qualify under New Jersey law in order to take advantage of the exemption DnC asserts applies to this matter … Since DnC does not, it cannot qualify under the literal requirements of the statute.

In Re Harvard Industries, Inc.

324 B.R. 238 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 28, 2005

Pursuant to the Plan, certain assets and causes of action were assigned to various trusts that were to established under the Plan. … That limited focus is misplaced given that the plain language of the statute clearly provides that product liability also includes damages from loss of the use of property.