Case law

Davis v. State (In re Venoco, LLC)

596 B.R. 480 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Jan 2, 2019

Effect on Administration of the Estate if the Court Abstains This factor clearly weighs in the Trust's favor and against abstention. … Extent to Which State Law Issues Predominate Over Bankruptcy Issues Clearly, state law issues predominate, which favors the Defendants.

Univ. of Wis. Oshkosh Found., Inc. v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wis. Sys. (In re Univ. of Wis. Oshkosh Found., Inc.)

586 B.R. 458 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Apr 12, 2018

Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings and affidavits on file show there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party can establish it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. … To qualify for the broad protection of § 18.14, the debt must meet the definition of "public debt." According to Wis.

In Re Polygraphex Systems, Inc.

275 B.R. 408 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 25, 2002

Olson, 84 F.3d 1402 (11th Cir.1996) (tax collector has qualified immunity); Parrish v. Nikolits, 86 F.3d 1088 (11th Cir.1996) (property appraiser has qualified immunity). … to either the defense of qualified immunity or sovereign immunity since it cannot be sued in the individual capacity and it is not a state.

Ellenberg v. Board of Regents (In Re Midland Mechanical Contractors, Inc.)

200 B.R. 453 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 13, 1996

unless the Legislature clearly has delegated its power to waive immunity to the Attorney General at his discretion. … Bliss, 903 F.2d 1373, 1379 (11th Cir.1990) ("[evidence that a State has waived sovereign immunity in its own courts is not by itself sufficient to establish waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court

Pullman Construction Industries, Inc. v. United States (In Re Pullman Construction Industries, Inc.)

190 B.R. 618 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 2, 1996

The statute clearly makes reference to the date that a tax is payable without penalty rather than date of the filing of the return. … Therefore, it did not establish that $50,000.00 payment was on account of an antecedent debt.

Murray v. Withrow (In Re PM-II Associates, Inc.)

100 B.R. 940 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · May 17, 1989

For purposes of subsection (b)(1), the State qualifies as a “creditor” as defined in § 101(9) to include an entity that has a claim against the debtor that arose before the order of relief. … That language would seem to clearly indicate that a penalty to be paid to the state is considered a debt for purposes of applying the Bankruptcy Code.

Mercy Hospital of Watertown v. United States Department of Health & Human Services (In Re Mercy Hospital of Watertown)

138 B.R. 366 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. New York · Feb 13, 1992

However, it is well established that “[t]he United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued ... and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court’s jurisdiction to entertain … The waiver of sovereign immunity under Code § 106(c) is clearly limited to the determination of separate issues arising under certain Code provisions, and HHS has not waived sovereign immunity under Code § 106(c) with respect

Ossen v. Connecticut, Department of Social Services (In Re Charter Oak Associates)

203 B.R. 17 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut · Nov 25, 1996

Congress clearly relied on Art. I, § 8, cl. 4 of the U.S. … The plaintiffs claim clearly qualifies as a setoff or a permissive counterclaim to the defendant’s proof of claim. The plaintiffs claim and the defendant’s claim are mutual debts arising out of separate transactions.

In re Lesh

159 B.R. 982 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 15, 1993

This Order was never appealed and became the final determination of the Debtor’s right to immunize his interest in the Plan from administration by the Trustee. … Subclause (a) deals with “clerical mistakes” which subclause is clearly not applicable in the present instance.

In Re Wood

23 B.R. 552 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · Sep 15, 1982

First, it should be noted that the words “any entity” suggest the absence of any immunity from the reach of a Bankruptcy Court’s Chapter 13 withholding powers. … It is in the context of this “fresh start” analysis that In the Matter of Parker, and other cases like it, are clearly distinguishable from the case at bar.

Bliemeister v. Industrial Commission of Arizona (In Re Bliemeister)

251 B.R. 383 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Arizona · Aug 1, 2000

Sovereignty Over Bankruptcy Proceedings Was Ceded In the Original Constitution As clearly stated in Alden , the Eleventh Amendment did not create or confer sovereign immunity on the states, but rather merely corrected the … To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subjects of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.” U.S. Const. Art. I, Sect. 8, cl. 4.

Gray v. Florida State University (In Re Dehon, Inc.)

327 B.R. 38 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 27, 2005

entitled to claim such immunity. 10 *45 Second, the proceeding must qualify as a “suit” for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment. … qualify as suits under the Eleventh Amendment.

In Re Garrett

158 B.R. 859 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 31, 1993

was not clearly foreshadowed. … Thus Patterson clearly did not overrule clear precedent but merely resolved a conflict between the Circuits. Neither did it decide a matter of first impression whose resolution was clearly foreshadowed.

Lake Whillans Fund I LP v. Delaware Trust Company

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 30, 2024

Delaware Trust is entitled to qualified immunity for these actions. … Delaware Trust has qualified immunity for the actions challenged by Lake Whillans and Clear Harbor. Its qualified immunity would apply to both the third and fourth claims for relief.

Andres v. Campbell (In Re Andres)

288 B.R. 205 · United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. Illinois · Sep 21, 2001

immunity in so far as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … In response to this assertion of qualified immunity, the Plaintiff conceded that Defendant, Linda Campbell, was immune from liability for any damages in this case.

R. Woolsey & Associates, Inc. v. Gugino (In Re R. Woolsey & Associates, Inc.)

454 B.R. 782 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Idaho · Mar 30, 2011

Continental Coin concludes that a bankruptcy trustee qualifies for immunity for at least certain adjudicative acts. 380 B.R. at 8-11 (following Antoine v. … Case law variously (and not always consistently, even within the same opinions) identifies the concept as qualified immunity, quasi-judicial immunity, and derived judicial immunity, among other characterizations.

Buchwald Capital Advisors, LLC v. Papas (In re Greektown Holdings, LLC)

559 B.R. 842 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 29, 2016

First, it is not clear whether or not Indian tribes themselves qualify to be debtors under the Bankruptcy Code, as discussed in Ji Hun Kim & Christopher S. … Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians ("Tribe") has a Board of Directors, as established by the Tribe’s Constitution.

Kirk v. Hendon (In Re Heinsohn)

231 B.R. 48 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · Mar 16, 1999

Yet, it is well established that when these functions are performed by a prosecutor, the prosecutor is protected by absolute immunity. Buckley v. … L.J. at 140 ("[Tjrustee enjoys qualified judicial immunity by virtue of his position....”) and Bogart, 68 Am.

Gower v. Farmers Home Administration (In Re Davis)

20 B.R. 519 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Georgia · Jun 2, 1982

This letter clearly establishes that Defendant has a claim against the estate. 2. … This clearly establishes *523 that Defendant is a “major secured, as well as unsecured, creditor and establishes the fact that Defendant has a claim against the estate. 3.

In Re Linc Capital, Inc.

280 B.R. 640 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 18, 2002

The filing of such Complaint would clearly be an act of waiver of sovereign immunity, (Lapides v. … The wording of Conclusion “M” *646 qualifies the sale for possible application of 11 U.S.C. § 1146 (c).