Case law

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

89 B.R. 486 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 11, 1988

V. … Compare Kupetz v.

Botelho v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc. (In Re Botelho)

195 B.R. 558 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · May 21, 1996

Specifically, the Debtor claimed that the No *562 tice of Right to Cancel given to her by Citi-corp was based upon Rescission Model Form H-9, issued by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Board”) and … See Jamerson v.

In re Ravenna Metropolitan District

522 B.R. 656 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado · Dec 15, 2014

In Nicholl v. … See Cross v. McNichols, 118 Colo. 442 , 195 P.2d 975, 976 (1948) (holding that “moral obligations” are not legally enforceable); Doe v.

GGI Props., LLC v. City of Millville (In re GGI Props., LLC)

588 B.R. 401 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 6, 2018

Oct. 27, 1986) ("It is 'only necessary that the circumstances established by the evidence be such as would lead a reasonably prudent man to that belief.' ") (quoting Brown Shoe Co. v. … It requires an action, albeit not a hearing and not a determination, by the county board in its quasi - judicial capacity." Curtiss Wright Corp. v. Wood-Ridge Borough, 4 N.J. Tax 68 , 79 (1982).

In Re Raymond

129 B.R. 354 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jul 1, 1991

Behrens v. … Board of Managers of the First Avenue Condominium v. Shandel, 143 Misc.2d 1084 , 542 N.Y.S.2d 466 (N.Y.Civ.Ct. 1989).

In Re Issa Corp.

142 B.R. 75 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Mar 18, 1992

In re Friedberg, 1991 WL 259038 (S.D.N.Y.1991); In re Charles & Lillian Brown’s Hotel, Inc., supra at 53. … Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48, 54 , 99 S.Ct. 914, 917 , 59 L.Ed.2d 136 (1979). Although a stipulation is a contract, Kleinberg v.

In Re Swansea Consolidated Resources, Inc.

155 B.R. 28 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Rhode Island · Jun 7, 1993

Furtado v. … In Mokover v.

In Re Africo Explorations, Inc.

146 B.R. 280 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Kansas · Oct 7, 1992

The Board of County Commissioners of Reno County, Kansas, appears by its attorney, Joseph L. McCarville III of Rauh, Thorne, Childs, O’Sullivan, McCarville & Brown, Hutchinson, Kansas. … Joe Self Chevrolet, Inc. v. Board of Sedgwick County Comm’rs, 247 Kan. 625, 632 , 802 P.2d 1231 (1990).

In re Engen

561 B.R. 523 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Kansas · Dec 13, 2016

See McCullough v. Brown {In re Brown), 162 B.R. 506, 508 (N.D. … McCullough v. Brown {In re Brown), 162 B.R. 506 (N.D. III. 1993). . Id. at 517-18 . . Sepinuck, supra note 63, at 354. . See, e.g., In re Alicea, 199 B.R. 862, 866 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1996); Lawson v.

In Re Fonke

321 B.R. 199 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 1, 2005

See Atchison v. Collins, 288 F.3d 177, 181 (5th Cir.2002) (citing United States v. … See C.I.R. v.

In re Neogenix Oncology, Inc.

508 B.R. 345 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland · Mar 11, 2014

Since that time, he has not attended any Board meeting or any Board committee meeting. Mr. … See Flake v.

Bollinger v. Polk (In re Polk)

183 B.R. 1020 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Missouri · Jun 28, 1995

See In re Brown, 21 B.R. 377, 380 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.1982). … Barry v. Barry, 579 S.W.2d 136, 140 (Mo.App.1979).

Boitnott v. United Virginia Bank (In Re Boitnott)

4 B.R. 119 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Virginia · Apr 10, 1980

Beale v. Kappa Alpha Order, 192 Va. 382 , 64 S.E.2d 789 (1951); Brown v. Margrande Compania Naviera, S. A., 281 F.Supp. 1004 (E.D.Va. 1968); Terry v. Yancey, 344 F.2d 789 (4th Cir. 1965); Mullins v. F. N. E. … Brown, supra. It is well settled that from the very nature of a private business corporation, the stockholders are not the private and joint owners of its property. Barksdale v. Finney, 55 Va. (14 Gratt.) 338 (1858).

In Re Keene Corp.

208 B.R. 112 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · May 7, 1997

Fund v. McFarlin’s, Inc., 789 F.2d 98, 100 (2d Cir.1986); In re New York Trap Rock Corp., 137 B.R. at 572 . … See Wisener v. Air Express Int’l Corp., 583 F.2d 579 , 583 (2d Cir.1978).

Murphy v. County of Chemung (In Re Murphy)

437 B.R. 74 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. New York · Sep 30, 2010

Diane Brown (“Brown”), the Clerk of the Civil Division of the Sheriffs Department (the “Brown Affidavit”), which stated that: (a) the Sheriffs Department did not typically serve warrants of eviction based upon tax foreclosure … Diane Brown, the Clerk of the Civil Division of the Sheriffs Department (collectively, along with the Brown Affidavit, the “Brown Affidavits”), which stated that: (a) her search of the records of contacts in August, 2006,

Tayfur v. SWEPI LP (In re Tayfur)

505 B.R. 673 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 2014

The Debtor also now contends that Brown v. Haight, 435 Pa. 12 , 255 A.2d 508 (1969), provides that a lack of production creates an “at will” lease capable of termination. … Brown v. Haight, 435 Pa. 12 , 255 A.2d 508, 510 (1969). Pennsylvania recognizes three discrete estates in land: the surface estate, the mineral estate, and the right to surface support. See Hetrick v.

Geisler v. Pansegrau (In Re Pansegrau)

180 B.R. 468 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 8, 1995

See Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127 , 99 S.Ct. 2205 , 60 L.Ed.2d 767 (1979); Comer v. … See, Browning v.

Georgia Lottery Corp. v. Thao Huynh (In re Thao Huynh)

549 B.R. 421 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia · Apr 7, 2016

In Bullock v. … Jantz v. Karch (In re Karch), 499 B.R. 903, 906 (10th Cir. BAP 2013). In Cora v.

Hoefs v. Schmidt

36 B.R. 834 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · Feb 8, 1984

Although this court is not bound in any way by the state court’s determination, Brown v. … Felsen, 442 U.S. 127 (1979), applying collateral estoppel in this *836 case is consistent with Brown and makes efficient use of this court’s time.

In Re Weibel, Inc.

161 B.R. 479 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · Dec 1, 1993

The law firm of McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enerson (the “McCutchen Firm”), whose employment application was denied on the ground that it was not “disinterested” as required by 11 U.S.C. § 327 (a), seeks approval of its fees … Among other things, one of the partners of the McCutchen Firm had, until just prior to the commencement of the bankruptcy case, served on the Debtor’s board of directors.