Case law

In Re Sun Healthcare Group, Inc.

245 B.R. 779 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Feb 25, 2000

This was clearly a timely motion for reconsideration of the amended Final DIP Order under Rule 9023 or 9024. B. … The Constitution clearly states that federal law has supremacy. 12 This clearly includes bankruptcy law. See, e.g., People of State of New York v.

In Re Carter

101 B.R. 170 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Dakota · Jun 8, 1989

Also, because a limited number of attorneys in our district practice bankruptcy law, the debtor’s ability to hire qualified counsel would be unduly chilled if travel was not fully compensa-ble. … Paraprofessional Billing If paralegal work is to be compensable, the qualifications of the assistant should be established to justify the charge. Hanson, No. 386-00136 at 5.

Drennen v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London (In re Residential Capital, LLC)

575 B.R. 29 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jul 14, 2017

Communications protected by the attorney-client privilege are generally “absolutely immune from discovery.” N.Y. Times Newspaper Div. of N.Y. Times Co. v. … The work product doctrine is a “qualified privilege” codified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3). See In re Asia Glob. Crossing, 322 B.R. at 262 .

Brickley v. Scattered Corp. (In re H & M Oil & Gas, LLC)

511 B.R. 408 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · Jun 5, 2014

The Fifth Circuit ultimately affirmed the district court’s admission of Miles’ testimony finding, among other things, that “Miles did clearly state that the sort of information relied upon here — the opinions of others— is … But, the Documentary Evidence does nothing to establish the reliability of the Bitter Report, as the Trustee admits in his Second Post-Hearing Supplement.

In Re Hessinger & Associates

171 B.R. 366 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · Aug 9, 1994

Cooke was clearly in charge of this operation and he was the individual who set the fee structure. … The rule also make the least qualified and ethical lawyers in the district immune from investigation by the State Bar of California, which has steadily improved its disciplinary system over the last several years.

Raso v. Fahey (In Re Fahey)

470 B.R. 649 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · May 14, 2012

The Health and Welfare Fund and the Pension Fund were established in 1959, and the Annuity Fund was established in 1973, each pursuant to separate, but essentially identical, trust agreements (the “Trust Agreements”). 2 The … that “all contributions shall be considered and defined as plan assets including contributions that are properly due and owing but not yet paid to the Funds by Contributing Employers.” 66 Section 1.15 “specifically and clearly

Dowden v. Teachers Insurance & Annuity Ass'n (In Re Baxter)

135 B.R. 353 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 15, 1992

The CREF Contract provides that “Benefits under this certificate are protected by the following clause contained in the statute of the State of New York establishing CREF: No money or other benefit provided or rendered by … This Court is persuaded by those courts which reach the conclusion that a tax-qualified ERISA pension or profit sharing plan is exempt from the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541 (c)(2). See Anderson v.

Luke v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Luke)

142 B.R. 160 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Michigan · Jun 12, 1992

In order to qualify, the tax return for 1987 must therefore have been last due after April 15, 1988. However, it was last due on April 15, 1988. … In each of those cases the return date was clearly on one side or the other of the date three years prior to the filing day.

In Re Palmer

391 B.R. 386 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Texas · Feb 20, 2008

Such designation must consist in the use of the detached parcel, or parcels, in connection with the home place, or in such preparation so to use as will clearly evidence the intention so to use; but this must vary according … Thus, for the Debtor to show that the 64-acre tract qualifies for the homestead exemption in this case, three things are required. See Murray, 260 B.R. at 823 . First, the 64-acre tract must be rural in nature.

Carter v. Larkham (In Re Larkham)

31 B.R. 273 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Vermont · Jun 14, 1983

This clearly establishes a genuine issue as to a material fact. … She still has the burden of establishing such conduct in this Court if the debt is to be declared nondischargeable.

In Re Dow Corning Corp.

250 B.R. 298 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · Jun 22, 2000

The process by which HCFA and DoD created the computer database qualifies as a business activity. See United States v. … It has long been held that the doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes the application of any time limitation to a Government claim unless Congress provides oth- 18 .

In Re Michelex Ltd.

195 B.R. 993 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Michigan · May 20, 1996

Bankruptcy Rule 2003(b)(3) establishes the procedures which determine “how to” vote. Generally, it requires that a proof of claim or other qualifying writing be filed by a creditor who desires to vote. … This is equally true if a qualifying writing under Fed.R.Bankr.P. 2003(b)(3) is filed.

Bryce v. Lawrence (In re Bryce)

491 B.R. 157 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 1, 2013

The creditor must clearly disclose the rescission right to the debtor. 15 U.S.C. § 1635 (a). … Although the Defendants did submit a response, the response was clearly incomplete.

In Re Public Service Co. of New Hampshire

99 B.R. 177 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 22, 1989

The State further urges that “an expeditious time schedule be established for the completion of the examiner’s assigned tasks ... … Moreover, the debtor’s qualifying liquidated debts clearly exceed the $5,000,000 threshold figure set forth in section 1104(b)(2) of the Code.

Jacques v. U.S. Bank N.A. (In Re Jacques)

416 B.R. 63 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · Sep 4, 2009

The Supreme Court has stated that “absent a clearly expressed congressional intention, ... repeals by implication are not favored.” Branch v. … This cause of action would be totally contrary to the entire scheme established by Congress to deal with creditor and debtor relationships.” B-Real, LLC v.

In Re Waldoff's, Inc.

132 B.R. 329 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Mississippi · Sep 20, 1991

The burden is on the applicant to establish the value of his services and that the hours claimed were reasonably expended. In re Consolidated Bancshares, Inc., 785 F.2d 1249 (5th Cir.1986); Alberti v. … The complexities of the case justified hiring a bankruptcy specialist with a national reputation, but the venue for the case was clearly Waco, Texas.

In re Gas-Mart USA, Inc.

598 B.R. 274 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Missouri · Mar 7, 2019

(In re Cocolat, Inc.), 176 B.R. 540 , 547 (Bankr.N.D.Cal.1995) ("the release of a lien that has already been recorded on the debtor's property clearly qualifies as ' new value ' "). … Wells Fargo argues that this establishes the value of the credit given as a result of its claim release.

Ratliff v. The United States Department of Education

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. West Virginia · Aug 27, 2021

Bankruptcy Code Section 106(a) clearly abrogates that immunity in this specific situation: the Ratliffs accuse the DOE of violating the discharge injunction (contained in § 524), which is listed in § 106(a) as a basis … for abrogation of sovereign immunity against a governmental unit.

In re John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC

573 B.R. 881 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Kansas · Sep 13, 2017

The Marital Trust specifically stated its intent to qualify for the marital deduction for federal estate tax purposes. … established to ‘transact business’ as that phrase is commonly interpreted.” 38 F.3d at 90 .

Hurbert v. Cheeks (In Re Cheeks)

467 B.R. 136 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 7, 2012

Exhibit 16 is a “consolidated account statement” for a “Non Qualified Deferred Compensation Trust.” … That document clearly states that the plan was to “be unfunded for tax purposes and for purposes of Title I of ERISA.”