Case law

In Re Cable & Wireless USA, Inc.

331 B.R. 568 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Jun 24, 2005

Moreover, political subdivisions of states do not qualify for Eleventh Amendment immunity. Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. … Further, as to all counties that filed proofs of claim, these counties clearly waived any defense of state sovereign immunity, even assuming those counties are an “arm” of the state.

Philadelphia Entertainment & Development Partners, L.P. v. Pennsylvania Department of Revenue (In re Philadelphia Entertainment & Development Partners, L.P.)

549 B.R. 103 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 2016

Sovereign Immunity 22 As established by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, the States are generally immune from suit in federal court. See, e.g., Blanciak v. … Not only has the Trustee failed to cite to any basis for this Court to And the Gaming Board’s interpretation of § 1326(b) to be clearly erroneous, 53 the Trustee’s interpretation of § 1326(b) is at odds with established principle

Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. County of Orange (In Re County of Orange)

183 B.R. 609 · United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California · May 26, 1995

Sovereign immunity has been waived. The County contends that the doctrine of sovereign immunity prohibits FNMA from setting off. … doctrine of governmental immunity does not apply.”

Childs v. Higher Education Assistance Foundation (In Re Childs)

89 B.R. 819 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Nebraska · Aug 30, 1988

He has been unsuccessful in efforts to establish a legal practice. Mr. Childs is presently employed in a part-time capacity with the postal service. … Iowa Committee of Law Examiners and the Iowa Supreme Court in federal district court, which suit was dismissed by the district court and affirmed by the circuit court on the basis of absolute judicial and quasi-judicial immunity

Dodson v. Tennessee Student Assistance Corp. (In Re Dodson)

259 B.R. 635 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · Feb 27, 2001

“The Eleventh Amendment confirmed rather than established sovereign immunity as a constitutional principle .... ” Id. … None of these policies clearly address a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Davis v. West Virginia State Tax Department (In re Patriot Coal Corp.)

562 B.R. 632 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Nov 22, 2016

The "suit" clearly sought a determination that the states owned NVR money—repayment of exempt transfer and recordation taxes—and a favorable decision would require that a federal court raid Maryland’s and Pennsylvania’s treasuries … from suit, the Court held that by ratifying the Constitution, the states waived sovereign immunity in at least some legal actions established under Congress’s power to create uniform laws on bankruptcy. 31 The Court found

In Re Envirodyne Industries, Inc.

174 B.R. 955 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 26, 1994

immunity. … What the proper standard of qualified immunity should be is therefore left for another day. D. Propriety of a Post-Confirmation Order Imposing a Release.

In Re Long

142 B.R. 234 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 23, 1992

Clearly, the facts in this case demonstrate that the IRS had knowledge of the stay. … Debt- or attempted to establish that this collapse was directly attributable to the IRS’s actions.

In Re Jeffrey

239 B.R. 859 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. New York · May 12, 1999

JCDSS and Farmer assert that these sections of the statute “clearly” show that the JCDSS is established under New York State statutes, and funded in part by New York State funds. … Section 111-h clearly says that each county SSD shall establish a support collection unit.

Watts v. Pennsylvania Housing Finance Co. (In Re Watts)

76 B.R. 390 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 1987

The Debtors clearly were denied HEMAP benefits for which they were qualified, making out a prima facie § 525(a) case, and the only argument with which the Defendants have countered basically admits that the bankruptcy filing … If aware of the practices of the Defendants in issue here, there is no doubt that otherwise-qualified debtors, also qualified for HEMAP benefits, would be discouraged from filing for bankruptcy, or from applying for HEMAP

Anderson v. Weinberger (In Re Anderson)

84 B.R. 426 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 12, 1988

He has been passed over ever since, and the record clearly establishes sufficient and proper reasons for denying the debtor promotion or reenlistment unrelated to his having filed bankruptcy. … On the contrary, the affidavits quite clearly establish that no adverse actions have been taken concerning the debtor’s employment in the Marine Corps as a result of his having filed a petition in bankruptcy.

Russell v. Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation (In Re Russell)

293 B.R. 34 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Arizona · May 15, 2003

Franchise Tax Board (In re *42 Mitchell), 209 F.3d 1111, 1118 (9th Cir.2000)(“Congress has clearly expressed its intent to abrogate state sovereign immunity in § 106(a)”); Elias v. … So the courts’ findings of waiver pursuant to that section necessarily hinged on a conclusion that the tribe qualified as a “governmental unit” as defined and used throughout § 106.

In Re Solis

137 B.R. 121 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Feb 14, 1992

Thus, the tax claim established by the IRS must initially be offset by the counterclaim of the estate. … Thus, the conduct of IRS was “willful” under 362(h) because “{t}he action by IRS was clearly directed at collection of the tax debt and therefore was intentional.” Id.

In Re WorldCom, Inc.

347 B.R. 123 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jul 26, 2006

Such a supposition is clearly unwarranted. … The Risk of Establishing Damages As previously noted, the Claimants face significant challenges in establishing liability on their claims. This clearly affects the risk of establishing damages.

Hillard Development Corp. v. Weinstein (In Re Richmond Health Care, Inc.)

243 B.R. 899 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. · Jan 26, 2000

II Sovereign Immunity. The Eleventh Amendment and State Sovereign Immunity. … Clearly, the Ex parte Young decision arose out of a need to protect federal rights, a need which emanated from the decision in Hans v. Louisiana.

Nichols v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Nichols)

143 B.R. 104 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 8, 1992

As to § 106(c), however, although it also waives sovereign immunity, it does not “establish unambiguously that the waiver extends to monetary claims.” Id. … The Nordic Village court concluded that: “[njeither § 106(c) nor any other provision of law establishes an unequivocal textual waiver of the Government’s immunity from a trustee’s claims for monetary relief.”

Seay v. Tennessee Student Assistance Corp. (In Re Seay)

244 B.R. 112 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jan 19, 2000

Beyond the statutory waiver established in 11 U.S.C. § 106 (b), courts recognize a common law rule of waiver to the effect that “a State waives its sovereign immunity by voluntarily invoking the jurisdiction of the federal … The inclusion of this federal regulation in the contract so clearly binds KSU to suit in federal bankruptcy court that if the contract were enacted into legislation it would undoubtedly satisfy Edelman’s waiver test.

Seidle v. Kwik Copy, Inc. (In Re Belize Airways Ltd.)

18 B.R. 485 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. · Feb 26, 1982

Plaintiff subsequently qualified and is presently acting as Trustee of the estate of BAL pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 702 (d). 2. … The Supreme Court, in rejecting a creditor’s challenge to the sufficiency of the number of petitioning creditors, has stated that “the filing of a petition, sufficient upon its face, .. . clearly gives the Bankruptcy Court

Gillman v. Board of Trustees (In Re T & D Management Co.)

40 B.R. 781 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah · Jun 8, 1984

, and then only with respect to compulsory counterclaims and certain offsets in favor of estates. 12 Clearly there was concern in the House about the power of Congress to waive the sovereign immunity of the states. … The trustee does not consider the effect of the qualifying language immediately following the quotation he cited: [S]ection 106(c) permits a trustee or debt- or in possession to assert avoiding powers under title 11 against

In Re Houck

184 B.R. 21 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 1995

Entireties property is immune from process by a creditor to satisfy a debt owed by only one of the spouses. … Significantly, the court stated: The trustee asserts in the objection that other debts listed in the schedules also qualify as joint debts.