Case law

Richard Royce Collection Ltd. v. New York City Shoes, Inc. (In Re New York City Shoes, Inc.)

84 B.R. 947 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 6, 1988

These sales certainly qualify as a “use in commerce” under the present facts because a line builder in the shoe industry like Shub ordinarily would sell to retailers, not to consumers. … However, the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable from those of El Sombrero.

Geiger v. Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation

137 B.R. 586 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 1992

It is perhaps pertinent to note, at this juncture, that it was established, in In re Johnson-Alien, 871 F.2d 421 , 423, 428 (3d Cir.1989), aff'd sub nom. … Nordic Village, Inc., — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1011 , 117 L.Ed.2d 181 (1992) ( 11 U.S.C. § 106 (c) does not waive federal immunity).

Corcoran v. McCabe (In re McCabe)

543 B.R. 182 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 2015

Specifically, § 523(c) establishes that bankruptcy courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine nondischargeability disputes under § 523(a)(6). 5 See, e.g., Judd v. … Thus, collateral estoppel clearly does not apply.

Lehigh Valley Hosp. v. Dietrich (In re Dietrich)

595 B.R. 59 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 2018

The Hospital is clearly listed as the provider of the services at the top of the Explanation of Benefits form. See the Hospital's Exhibit R. … Again, the Hospital is clearly listed as the provider of the services on the Explanation of Benefits form. See the Hospital's Exhibit T.

Pinto v. Philadelphia Fresh Food Terminal Corp. (In Re Pinto)

98 B.R. 200 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 1989

However, we concluded that the Debtors had failed to establish that the transfer qualified as avoidable under § 548(a)(2), since they had failed to establish that they were either insolvent at the time of the transfer or … The Defendant has clearly indicated that it no longer wishes to lease to the Debtors.

Merrill Farms Corp. v. H.R. Hindle & Co., Inc. (In Re H.R. Hindle & Co.)

149 B.R. 775 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 1993

This preference clearly extends to secured creditors as well as general unsecured creditors. … This figure can also be compared to the total sum of $340,634.13 which the United States Department of Agriculture recognized, on June 29, 1992, as qualified for trust protection, to be held in a CoreStates First Pennsylvania

In Re Express Car & Truck Rental, Inc.

440 B.R. 422 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 2010

In this case, the Former Debtors reserved their rights under § 303(i) and Stuski qualified her consent to the dismissal by her opposition to an award of attorney’s fees. Under R. … The Former Debtors’ entitlement to “fees on fees” is well established. See, e.g., S. Cal. Sunbelt Developers, 608 F.3d at 463-64 .

Diaconx Corp. v. ITT Corp. (In re Diaconx Corp.)

79 B.R. 602 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 1987

The drafters clearly contemplated that the “usual rule” would remain in effect. See Baker, 98 Banking L.J. at 11-13. … Had the drafters intended a major change in the 1962 code, they would have said so more clearly. See Young v. Kaye, 443 Pa. 335 , 279 A.2d 759 (1971).

Sandow v. Burke (In Re Burke)

416 B.R. 136 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2009

Clearly, a document referring only to a “gift of equity” does not constitute such a writing. … The evidence at trial established that Mr.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Xyan.Com, Inc. v. Banta Corp. (In Re Xyan.Com, Inc.)

299 B.R. 357 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2003

would result in a violation of public policy or protect someone from liability for a crime; — only when the corporation was an artifice and a sham to execute illegitimate purposes and an abuse of the corporate fiction and immunity … The prospect of bankruptcy was clearly on the horizon by the close of calendar year 2000, and the “defective” bankruptcy resolution by the Xyan Board of Directors followed a mere two months later.

Holber v. M & T Bank (In Re Scheffler)

471 B.R. 464 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2012

The evidence is clearly insufficient for me to determine the value of the Home as of that time. … This is clearly insufficient evidence to establish an accurate value for the Home.

United States v. Fitzgerald (In Re Fitzgerald)

73 B.R. 923 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 27, 1987

The people at work there are not automatons; they are human beings, not immune from lapses in procedure because of distractions, overwork, forgetfulness, carelessness, or other foibles to which we are all vulnerable. … Clearly distinguishable on this point are the other "public benefits" cases cited by the parties.

Young v. PHEAA

225 B.R. 312 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 1998

The Debtor is doubtful about prospects of employment because she feels that, while she is very qualified for many professional positions, she is being discriminated against based upon her age and her lack of helpful contacts … It would certainly be more palatable to utilize such reasoning where a debtor’s income, as well as the lender’s designation of any lien obligation which it is willing to voluntary discharge, are clearly established in the

Glauser v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (In Re Glauser)

365 B.R. 531 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 3, 2007

Ameriquest clearly knew about the existence of the Wells Fargo Loan as it appears on the title commitment prepared by Express, which was in Ameriquest’s file. … Tr. at 90. 30 Neither the relevance nor the legal correctness of this view was established.

Blythe v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. Ex Rel. Ace Securities Corp. (In Re Blythe)

445 B.R. 405 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2009

The Plaintiffs assert that their loan qualifies for this very exception. … This is established law. A vicarious violation of UDAP has been held to have occurred where a different consumer protection statute is violated. In re Wylie, 1991 WL 42236 *4 (E.D.Pa.)

Baehr v. Internal Revenue Service Center (In Re E & S Comfort, Inc.)

92 B.R. 616 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 1988

Clearly, we cannot incorporate his testimony from AIA II into the record here. … The Drabkin court states, 824 F.2d at 1115 , that a payment "qualifies as a voidable preference under section 547(b)-(c) unless the funds used are traceable to a trust and therefore are excluded from the debtor's estate under

Barrett v. Commonwealth Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n (In Re Barrett)

113 B.R. 175 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 1990

Established on that date were the bases for Orders of February 16, 1990, and February 22, 1990, respectively, establishing the amount of the secured proofs of claim of CFSLA and Gunn at $36,310.64 and $9,503.69, respectively … Martin clearly emphasized the dichotomy between an “ordinary” private sale and a “forced” sheriff’s sale in Philadelphia, and convine- *183 ingly opined that a sheriffs sale frequently yields less than fifty (50%) percent

Madera v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co. (In Re Madera)

363 B.R. 718 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 2007

These new claims are clearly not based upon newly discovered evidence. … Moreover, assessment of their claims and defenses is clearly the job of counsel, who has the legal expertise needed to do so.

Eisenberg v. C & J Services, Inc. (In re G & M Enterprises, Inc.)

485 B.R. 112 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 2013

Defendant has not met its burden to qualify for reconsideration under the three-factor Subramanian test offered by Defendant as controlling. … Clearly, the address to which all notices were sent was correct. Defendant responded to the initial summons and complaint, however inadequately, shortly after service of them.

Zaidi v. U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (In Re Zaidi)

78 B.R. 410 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 1987

HUD, supra, 623 F.Supp. at 468, that HUD has a burden of demonstrating that it considered all of the relevant factors in denying a request for assignment, clearly HUD’s failure to discuss this point is significant. … If HUD cannot establish evidence that the reason for the Husband-Debtor’s termination was his voluntary act of leaving his job to go to India, it would seem appropriate for HUD to accept this mortgage into its assignment