Case law

In Re Fodor

339 B.R. 519 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 23, 2006

Applicable Burden of Proof Under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4003(c), the objecting party bears the burden of establishing that the exemption is not properly claimed. … It is possible, for example, that a person entitled to the tax exemption may not be immune from the claims of creditors.

In Re Wilson

94 B.R. 886 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Jan 6, 1989

An entity seeking intervention may establish just cause by demonstrating an economic or similar interest in the matter pending. … The sole issue addressed in Midlantic, however, was the disposition of tangible property which threatened physical harm, a situation clearly not before the Court here.

Kish v. Verniero (In Re Kish)

221 B.R. 118 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · May 22, 1998

The latter situation is clearly a suit for monetary damages for a past violation of federal law. … The doctrine articulated in Ex parte Young was clearly identified by the Supreme Court long before the date of that decision.

In Re Skjetne

213 B.R. 274 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Vermont · Jul 25, 1997

In Curran, supra, 152 Vt. at 250 , 565 A.2d 1362 , a personal injury plaintiff appealed a summary judgment for the state on the grounds of sovereign immunity. … The increased homestead exemption was clearly applicable on the date Debtors filed.

Brandt-Airflex Corp. v. Long Island Trust Co. (In Re Brandt-Airflex Corp.)

69 B.R. 701 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · Feb 6, 1987

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY As a general rule, governmental bodies enjoy immunity from suit unless expressly waived. Hawaii v. Gordon, 373 U.S. 57 , 83 S.Ct. 1052 , 10 L.Ed.2d 191 (1963). … In light of the manifest intent of Congress clearly expressed in Section 106(a) that the filing of a claim is deemed a waiver of sovereign immunity, the contention by the IRS and the NYS Tax Commission that this court’s jurisdiction

In Re Volpe

100 B.R. 840 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas · Apr 28, 1989

Clearly, this legislation is intended to “move” the ERISA-qualified plan, sought to be exempted by debtors such as the Volpe’s, out of the “federal law” portion of Code § 522(b)(2)(A) and “convert” it to “state law”. … Clearly, the Debtors could have consolidated their various IRA qualified accounts into one and have kept exactly the same amount of benefits.

In Re Miller

435 B.R. 561 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 5, 2010

. § 522 (d) and has established its own statutory exemptions; See, Matter of Salzer, 52 F.3d 708, 712 (7th Cir.1995). … Although this passage is clearly dicta, it is consistent with the decision in Tenneco and with ERISA’s legislative history.

Texas v. Davis (In Re Davis)

340 B.R. 767 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 16, 2006

Though the Eleventh Amendment is clearly not implicated in the issuance of the discharge order nor in the binding effect thereof upon the State, even if such *771 protection was available, any claim of sovereign immunity … Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 967 F.Supp. 920, 925 (S.D.Tex.1997) ["It is well established that a federal district court must generally apply an interpretation of law articulated by its circuit court of appeals.”].

Glinka v. Howard Bank, N.A. (In re Powell)

227 B.R. 61 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Vermont · Oct 19, 1998

We do not reach the constitutional questions, because we hold that neither 8 V.S.A. § 508 nor the qualified federal bank examination privilege renders the materials immune from the discovery powers of this Court. *64 STATE … Indeed, we are at a loss as to who or what qualifies as a 'civil law enforcement authority.'

AJ Contracting Co. v. City of New York (In Re AJ Contracting Co.)

300 B.R. 182 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Oct 14, 2003

— absolute or qualified immunity — that attach to prosecutorial actions when the defendant is sued in an individual capacity. … See 495 U.S. at 308-309 , 110 S.Ct. 1868 ("We conclude that the statutory consent to suit provision, elucidated by the venue provision, establishes the States’ waiver of any Eleventh Amendment immunity that might otherwise

Matthews v. United States (In Re Matthews)

184 B.R. 594 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Alabama · Apr 11, 1995

The IRS’s behavior was clearly inappropriate, but the actual damages suffered by the Matthews are not easily calculable. … United States (In re Brown), 159 B.R. 1014 (Bankr.S.D.Ga.1993) (no waiver of sovereign immunity); In re Shafer, 146 B.R. 477 (D.Kan.1992) (no sovereign immunity waiver under Section 106(c) but civil contempt power allows

Jet 1 Center, Inc. v. City of Naples Airport Authority (In Re Jet 1 Center, Inc.)

322 B.R. 182 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 15, 2005

to a clearly expressed state policy. … The Supreme Court in Hallie upheld the immunity claim by the Authority from an antitrust attacked because the “challenged activity was pursuant to a clearly expressed state policy.”

In Re Weisser Eyecare, Inc.

245 B.R. 844 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 6, 2000

Because trustees serve an important function as officers of the court, they enjoy limited personal immunity when operating pursuant to their authority and enjoy absolute immunity if operating pursuant to a court order. … As mentioned above, the causes of action held by Weisser and asserted by Weisman as trustee against NBD qualified as property of the estate under § 541 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Matter of GCI, Inc.

131 B.R. 685 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 22, 1991

Debtor’s management and nonunion personnel are not immune either. … There is no evidence concerning the manner in which the company determined whether or not any particular employee was qualified under the standards and factors established by the contract. 3 Without this evidence, in light

King v. Florida (In Re King)

280 B.R. 767 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Georgia · May 15, 2002

In an earlier article, Hamilton had explained that under the Constitution, “the State Governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had and which were not by that act, exclusively delegated … Article III provides as follows: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Blue Diamond Coal Co. v. Angelucci (In Re Blue Diamond Coal Co.)

145 B.R. 895 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jul 23, 1992

When an established state procedure is challenged, there is no need to plead a lack of adequate state remedies. … Clearly, the Certificate was property of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate.

Distad v. United States (In Re Distad)

392 B.R. 482 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah · Aug 8, 2008

No deference is owed to an agency’s decision that is clearly wrong. When an agency’s decision runs contrary to Supreme Court precedent, the agency’s decision will be reversed. Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. … The IRS has asserted sovereign immunity as an affirmative defense 4 , and the Court finds that the IRS has not waived sovereign immunity 5 .

In Re Adell

325 B.R. 883 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 22, 2005

The Court stated: “This Court finds that Congress has clearly expressed its intention that the automatic stay not be lifted, and the case not be dismissed, simply because the case is a single asset real estate case. … In the last analysis the real test is whether the debtor had an honest desire and an ability to achieve in the Chapter 11 case, a goal which is consistent with the well established policy aims of Chapter 11.

In Re French

127 B.R. 434 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · May 23, 1991

French is clearly entitled to refuse to answer ASCS’ question regarding Peterson Feed Mill’s alleged equitable lien, provided he has not waived his Fifth Amendment privilege. … Under the Bankruptcy Act, in contrast, it was not necessary for the debtor to seek immunity, since such immunity was mandated by statute. In re Hulon, 92 B.R. at 673 . 2 .

In Re Rogers

222 B.R. 348 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. California · Jun 18, 1998

Clearly, the annuity is not a self-employed retirement plan or a qualifying IRA under (a)(3). Nor is it a qualified profit-sharing plan under (a)(2). … Another hint lies in the hierarchy or priority of exemption established by the legislature.