Case law

In Re Vic Snyder, Inc.

50 B.R. 631 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 1985

. *634 The debtor points to a series of events from November of 1976 to February of 1977 which establish a “pattern of communicated dissatisfaction with Stern’s job performance.” (emphasis added.) … Therefore, we are not convinced that the purported decline in corporate profits was clearly attributable to Stern’s performance.

In re Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.

134 B.R. 239 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 25, 1991

We find the charges of Liberty Mutual and ACF to be clearly within that language. … Insurers say that to qualify for prejudgment interest, the underlying amount sought must both be liquidated and due and payable. They say that neither condition is met here.

Leeds Building Products, Inc. v. Moore-Handley, Inc. (In Re Leeds Building Products, Inc.)

181 B.R. 1006 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia · May 9, 1995

Within the context of a preferential transfer action, the Bankruptcy Code clearly assigns the burden of proof. … Therefore, under the right circumstances, filing a complaint to force a settlement may qualify as improper conduct prohibited by Rule 9011.

Frymire v. Painewebber, Inc. (In Re Frymire)

96 B.R. 525 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 1989

We observed that, in these circumstances, the Defendants enjoyed a qualified privilege which allowed the Plaintiff to succeed in such a claim only if the Plaintiff established that the published matter in issue was both false … Clearly, the Plaintiff was not very concerned about any violation of this condition.

In Re Worldwide Direct, Inc.

259 B.R. 56 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Feb 14, 2001

In large cases, committee ad-visors are typically retained and usually well-qualified to assist the committee in the performance of all of its duties. … That extra step is clearly not necessary if the member reviews the pleadings itself. We make this finding specifically in the context of this case.

Babitt v. Schwartz (In Re Lollipop, Inc.)

205 B.R. 682 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · Mar 7, 1997

Young, 178 B.R. at 946 (finding summary judgment inappropriate where defendant challenged existence of creditor qualified under section 544(b)). … Therefore the Court concludes that the Trustee is qualified under § 544(b) to employ NYDCL section 273 in order to set aside the transfers.

In re Kallabat

482 B.R. 563 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 13, 2012

That subsection states that the filing of a bankruptcy case does not operate to stay the commencement or continuation of a civil proceeding (i) for the establishment of paternity; (ii) for the establishment or modification … Section 362(b)(2)(A)(iv) elearly states that there is an exception to the automatic stay for dissolution of a marriage, but qualifies that exception by saying that it does not apply “to the extent that such proceeding seeks

Fosco v. Fosco (In Re Fosco)

289 B.R. 78 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 10, 2002

A: We’ve discussed it when he gets established in a better job he would pay. Q: What’s established in a better job, what does that mean? … A: That he should establish himself and make some money and be able to pay his bills. Q: And what does he say when you discuss that he should establish himself in a better job?

In Re Tulper

345 B.R. 322 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado · May 22, 2006

Consequently, it will be the courts that will need to establish criteria for determining what constitutes a “disability” under this new law. … Testimony of health care professionals or others qualified in the field may need to be called to testily to demonstrate the validity of the incapacity or disability.

Meldoshia Rosser

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 22, 2022

The Trustee also notes the findings by the Court that “the Debtor could not clearly describe the depreciation of assets that occurred within a year before the petition date required to meet her burden under this section … The Trustee argues that those facts established in the Order and Judgment are sufficiently similar to the facts set forth in Marrama v.

Herzog v. Birmingham Fire Insurance (In Re D. H. Overmyer Co.)

19 B.R. 750 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 1982

Clearly, such provisions are not directed against the “miscreant” payee but rather against the culpable party who has dealt with the former. 28 ® Having said this, we do not grant immunity to the receiver, but rather analyze … Of course, assuming arguendo that the facts here demonstrated unjust enrichment, which they clearly do not, restitution could be denied because any alleged benefit to the receiver was officiously conferred upon him by Birmingham

In Re Red River Energy, Inc.

409 B.R. 163 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas · Jun 26, 2009

Low (Low), CCM Master Qualified Fund, LTD. … June 2008 $ 40,530.00 CCM Master Qualified Fund Ltd.

In re Licking River Mining, LLC

535 B.R. 731 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Kentucky · Aug 21, 2015

Thus, the district court clearly altered and expanded the order which was on appeal. The Lenders also rely on this Court’s decision in Katz v. New River Cmty. Coll. … There, the bankruptcy court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss all counts of the adversary proceeding on sovereign immunity grounds.

In Re A.V.B.I., Inc.

143 B.R. 738 · United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California · Jul 29, 1992

It did not represent settled law establishing that liens could never be abrogated in bankruptcy. … In fact, variants of that alternative already exist for qualifying debtors: they are called Chapters 12 and 13.

In Re Triangle Grain Co.

218 B.R. 523 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California · Mar 16, 1998

While a trustee may clearly need the assistance of counsel with respect to challenged performance, the costs for such legal services must be viewed as a business expense of the trustee to be paid as a cost of the trustee … Whatever validity that view may have had in the past, it is noted that established Chapter 7 panel trustees serving this court receive an average of $154,000 annually, plus reimbursement for expenses, from the cases they

Engineered Floors, LLC v. Beaulieu of America, Inc.

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia · Oct 31, 2022

In the Summary Judgment Order, the Court found that EF is not liable for Bucket 1 claims, but is not immune from liability for Bucket 2 and Bucket 3 claims. … When the responding party provides a qualified answer, the Court should “balance the right of a party to qualify responses when necessary against the requirement that responses meet the substance of the request.”

BlockFi Inc.

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 18, 2025

Tooley 845 A.2d at 1031 (establishing test for whether a stockholder's claim is derivative or direct). … Therefore, Movant’s assertion that the Gatekeeper Provision immunizes wrongful conduct is unfounded.

Martini v. We the People Forms & Service Centers USA, Inc. (In Re Barcelo)

313 B.R. 135 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · Aug 5, 2004

In Central Hudson, the Supreme Court established a four-part test to resolve First Amendment challenges to commercial speech. … , and clearly defined, portion of bankruptcy jurisdiction to the bankruptcy courts.

Vaughn v. Central Mississippi Credit Corp. (In re Vaughn)

542 B.R. 589 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 2, 2015

However, to recover damages for emotional distress under § 362(k), “a plaintiff must (1) suffer significant emotional distress, (2) clearly establish the significant emotional distress, and (3) demonstrate a causal connection … Even assuming the emotional distress Plaintiff, suffered was “significant,” she has not “clearly established” her injury with anything besides her own general testimony, nor demonstrated a sufficient causal connection to

In Re Peter Mergenthaler

144 B.R. 632 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · Feb 21, 1992

On July 7, 1988 the case was dismissed since the Debtor did not qualify for relief under Chapter 13. … The petition was a “skeleton” petition and was clearly prepared in great haste.