Case law

Pankau v. First State Bank of Harvard (In Re Pankau)

65 B.R. 204 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 22, 1986

As such, it is clearly a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157 (b)(2)(E). … In either approach the debtor will have to establish a prima facie defense on the merits in his pleading.

Hutton v. Ferguson (In re Hutton)

463 B.R. 819 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas · Nov 30, 2011

Furthermore, the court declared that awards for attorneys’ fees “must be granted only to that litigant who qualifies for the benefit through the process of a judicial balancing of the equities.” … Even if the unusual circumstances exception were applicable in this case, Hutton has not established the unusual circumstances necessary for an exception to non-dischargeability.

In Re Metropolitan Hospital

110 B.R. 731 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 1990

Any issues concerning the standing of the bondholders’ committee or the indenture trustee to bring such a suit, the immunity (if any) of the governmental defendants to such suit, see generally Hoffman v. … Clearly, the indentures sought to lien future gross revenues.

In Re Klein

110 B.R. 862 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 22, 1990

As pointed out elsewhere in this Opinion, § 702(a)(1) is susceptible to the interpretation that multiple qualifying claims may be aggregated or that a single claim may be bifurcated into its qualifying and nonquali-fying … parts with the vote being based on the qualifying part.

Matter of Taylor

91 B.R. 302 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 14, 1988

The contract before this Court is clearly executory, and pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 365 it would clearly be reject-able by the debtor. … Having established that he qualifies as a debtor, Mr. Taylor is entitled to the benefits of Chapter 11. 5 . Debtor’s principal equity asset is his residence.

In Re Leslie Fay Companies, Inc.

212 B.R. 747 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Aug 18, 1997

To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, a plaintiff must show that (i) she is an individual with a disability; (ii) she is qualified to perform the essential functions of the job; and (hi) the employer … It is clearly relevant if the alleged harasser is the plaintiff’s supervisor rather than her co-worker, although such a distinction will not always be dispositive. Id. 779-80 .

Land-O-Sun Dairies, L.L.C. v. Heartland Food & Dairy Distributors, Inc. (In Re Heartland Food & Dairy Distributors, Inc.)

253 B.R. 32 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 1, 2000

L.L.C. asserts “[Inc.] was clearly a misnamed party in the first suit” and argues that this mistake was corrected by L.L.C.’s filing the second suit, which, according to L.L.C., was made necessary by the state court’s order … BAP 1999) Rooker-Feldman establishes that the losing party-in a state court lawsuit cannot collaterally attack that court’s ruling in federal court.

In Re Young

297 B.R. 492 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Texas · Aug 28, 2003

The Debtor’s father died on or about March 2, 2001 but clearly within 180 days of the petition date. … “[W]hile the Trustee has the burden of proving that exemptions are not properly claimed, the initial burden is with the Debtor to establish that the exemption, as claimed, is of the type covered by the statute.”

Gonzalez v. Anthony (In re Anthony)

538 B.R. 145 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 17, 2015

Conversely, the defendant argues that the entire context of the conversation clearly shows that the plaintiff is not implicated by the defendant but is instead exonerated. … A conspiracy, i.e., an agreement, to commit a tort or other wrong does not qualify. Actions taken against parties other than the claimant do not qualify. Nor does action taken by someone other than the debtor qualify.

In Re Gosman

282 B.R. 45 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. · Jul 30, 2002

Such a broad term *52 clearly overrides the mandate of Section 522 or any other provisions relating to exemptions. … debtor and as such could have qualified the term “property” in Section 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii) if it chose to do so.

Celotex Corp. v. AIU Insurance (In Re Celotex Corp.)

251 B.R. 163 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 20, 2000

This language clearly distinguishes an authorization of costs for solely a sanctionable event. … This Court finds that categories of allowable costs will not be limited by 28 U.S.C. § 1920 , so long as the prevailing parties may qualify under another section of Title 11 for the authorization of costs, i.e. expense categories

U.S. Companies, Inc. v. Shaffer (In Re Shaffer)

42 B.R. 522 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 31, 1984

This extension period may be established by amending a complaint or pleading under 28 U.S.C. § 1446 , which provides for removal of civil action from state court to the United States district court. *525 In the ease of In … It clearly meets the relationship test because the Debtor and Defendant, Craig Shaffer, is a party to both. In re Tidwell, 4 B.R. 100, 102 (Bankr.N.D.Texas 1980).

In re Robben

562 B.R. 469 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Kansas · Jan 4, 2017

“[T]his provision permits a creditor to bring or continue an action directly against the debtor for the purpose of establishing the debtor’s liability when ... establishment of that liability is a prerequisite to recovery … that this provision permits a creditor to bring or continue an action directly against the debtor for the purpose of establishing the debtor’s liability when ... establishment of that liability is a prerequisite. to recovery

In Re Howard

65 B.R. 498 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas · Sep 8, 1986

The homestead laws of Texas clearly support this argument. The Texas Constitution provides, in pertinent part: Sec. 50. … It is well established that when determining whether the FDIC is subject to a claim or defense, it is federal law that governs the question and not state law. E.g.

In re Buckeye Activewear, LLC

589 B.R. 772 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 31, 2018

The burden of establishing the non-contingent and undisputed nature of a § 303(b) qualifying claim rests on the petitioning creditor. Soderberg , 441 B.R. at 263 (citing Riverview Trenton R.R. Co. v. … Pa. 2017) ("...bankruptcy courts clearly retain jurisdiction to consider awarding a putative debtor section 303(i) damages after the court dismisses the involuntary petition.").

In Re Travelot Co.

286 B.R. 462 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Georgia · Aug 20, 2002

CNN failed to provide anything qualifying as a media plan prior to March 14, 2002, see Def.’s Ex. 1 (email and attachment from Aaron Dalin to Issac-son), and failed to make any response to the proposed mockups submitted by … The Contract does not clearly define the terms “functionality,” “booking functionality,” or “travel content.”

Logan v. Ahlbrecht (In Re Logan)

195 B.R. 769 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Washington · Feb 2, 1996

Carter, 83 Wash.2d 136 , 516 P.2d 767 (1973) clearly demonstrates the broad parameters of Washington’s interpretation of consumer goods. … The court rejected that argument, pointing out that Washington ease law has clearly established that the intention of the annexor is the most important factor of consideration and that such intent is determined from the circumstances

Official Committee Of Unsecured Creditors v. BlockFi Inc.

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 30, 2024

It states, in relevant part, “[n]otwithstanding an assertion of sovereign immunity, sovereign immunity is abrogated as to a governmental unit to the extent set forth in this section with respect to the following: Sections … As noted, it merely seeks a determination of what property in the Debtors’ possession is estate property, and if that property is subject to forfeiture— something clearly within the exclusive jurisdiction of the bankruptcy

In Re Nygard

55 B.R. 623 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California · Dec 10, 1985

Section 522 (m), it does not clearly indicate that debtors who file joint petitions are each entitled to claim the Section 703.-140(b) exemptions. … (iii) That plan or contract does not qualify under Section 401(a), 403(a), 403(b), 408, or 409 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. (11) The debtor’s right to receive, or property that is traceable to, any of the following

Motors Liquidation Co. Avoidance Action Trust ex rel. Wilmington Trust Co. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (In re Motors Liquidation Co.)

552 B.R. 253 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jun 30, 2016

The circuit affirmed the decision of the courts below, but concluded that it “need not decide whether the payments fall within the ‘settlement payments’ safe harbor because they clearly fall within the safe harbor for ‘transfers … The note purchase agreements “were clearly ‘securities contracts’ because they provided for both the original purchase and the ‘repurchase’ of the Notes.