Case law

In Re Material Corp., Inc.

206 B.R. 933 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · May 20, 1996

Its sovereign immunity argument, as is relevant here, was that the limited waiver of sovereign immunity provided by 11 U.S.C. § 106 does not apply because the Debtor does not have a viable counterclaim against the United … Clearly, Mr. Kendall had apparent authority to consent to the IRS’ seizure. 5. Alternatively, Mr. Kew implicitly consented to the IRS’ entry to the premises and seizure of the corporate assets.

Guinee v. Board of Supervisors (In Re James R. Corbitt Co.)

62 B.R. 1017 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Aug 6, 1986

The use of unequivocal language and the lack of any qualifying language indicates that the Court has already determined that the escrow funds may be applied to the County’s claim on which Merritt is also liable. … Clearly, a finding that a surety is subro-gated to the rights held by a particular creditor does not settle all issues regarding actual recovery from the principal by exercise of those rights.

In Re Robert Landau Associates, Inc.

50 B.R. 670 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jul 2, 1985

Unger had been granted immunity from prosecution. … Whereas the immunity could have been inferred from the statement that Mr.

Williams v. United States (In Re Williams)

188 B.R. 721 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Rhode Island · Oct 24, 1995

Cannon, all notice requirements have clearly been satisfied, the request for relief on due process grounds is without merit, and it is DENIED. … discussed supra, the sanctioned government attorney raised the defense of sovereign immunity.

In Re Schott

449 B.R. 697 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas · Mar 16, 2011

The debtor bears the burden of establishing that a particular property qualifies as his homestead. … The court concluded that the debtor had clearly established the 5.056 acres on the undeveloped parcel as her homestead because she had been living there. Id. at 938-39 .

WLC Enters., Inc. v. Rylant (In re Rylant)

594 B.R. 783 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 7, 2018

Feb. 27, 2012) ("If the failure to pay a just debt were the only criteria that would qualify under this exception to discharge [§ 523(a)(6) ], then no debt would ever be dischargeable. … App. 2005), the Court of Appeals held: our case law clearly establishes that punitive damages may be recovered for breach of contract when the defendant's conduct has been sufficiently malicious, oppressive, fraudulent, or

In Re Volk

26 B.R. 457 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Dakota · Jan 11, 1983

Debtors further allege this is “manifestly unfair” and also violates Article IV, Section 2, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution. … The inescapable presumption is that the debtors have left South Dakota to establish permanent residence in the State of Wyoming.

Hoffman v. R & E Builders, Inc. (In Re Woodland Builders, Inc.)

87 B.R. 774 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut · Jul 1, 1988

The Leavy trustee refused to collect the tax, contending that the Supremacy Clause doctrine established by McCulloch v. … “directly and primarily” against him, then Congress has waived this immunity.

Northwestern Corp. v. Ammondson (In Re Northwestern Corp.)

324 B.R. 529 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · May 4, 2005

At present the Debt- or anticipates rejecting and terminating certain non-qualified plans. … The Pegasus district court decision was upheld on appeal on the “close nexus” issue, adopting Resorts International, but reversed on sovereign immunity grounds. In re Pegasus Gold, 394 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir.2005).

In Re Berry Publishing Services, Inc.

231 B.R. 676 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 11, 1999

The Trustee’s authority to sell was limited to the terms of the Sale Order and those terms clearly indicated that the sale was without warranty. … Nor is it necessary for this Court to decide whether a trustee may be liable in his official capacity for acts of negligence, because it is well established that a trustee is absolutely immune from such claims when acting

Heritage Associates, II, L.L.C. v. Maryland, Department of Health & Mental Hygiene (In Re Heritage Associates, II, L.L.C.)

336 B.R. 255 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland · Jan 12, 2006

As stated very clearly by the Court in NVR, a suit seeking to raid a state’s treasury is the quintessential suit contemplated by the Eleventh Amendment. … Such a result is prohibited by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. See NVR, 189 F.3d at 457 .

In Re Martin

115 B.R. 311 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah · Jun 19, 1990

The debtors argue the Plans themselves establish a trust, as opposed to the individual efforts of the debtors. … Under Mackey , the following principles are established: (1) 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (a) preempts any state law that relates to an ERISA qualified plan; (2) a law relates to an employee benefit plan, in the normal sense of the phrase

In Re Connelly

59 B.R. 421 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 27, 1986

It is for the court to say whether his silence is justified, * * * and to require him to answer ‘if it clearly appears that he is mistaken’ * * Hoffman v. … “[A] witness need not establish that an answer to a question or an explanation why an answer cannot be given will in fact incriminate.

In Re Finkel

151 B.R. 779 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas · Jan 8, 1993

But that was clearly not her desire. She wanted her sons to have the business, and to run it. … Would that establish the bond necessary?

In Re Beebe

435 B.R. 95 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. New York · Aug 20, 2010

However, as the Court therein qualified, A claim for emotional distress damages is sustainable, however, only upon a showing of ‘clear evidence to establish that significant harm occurred as a result of the violation.... … Thus, these cases are clearly distinguishable from the one presently under consideration by this Court.

Herrell v. DeCora (In Re DeCora)

387 B.R. 230 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Mar 28, 2008

It is not crafted to establish the rights of competing creditors, but rather to protect the tribe and control the distribution of per capita payments through an exercise of its sovereign immunity. … If it were a system of lien perfection, the ordinance would need to clearly establish the bank’s right to the money over the rights of a lien creditor.

ITT Financial Services v. Finley (In Re Finley)

89 B.R. 938 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 4, 1988

Thus, based on the financial statement, the Debtors’ debt to net income ratio was approximately 31%, which was well below the ratio of 50% established by ITT as the cut-off ratio used to determine whether an applicant qualified … In re Valley, 21 B.R. 674 (Bkrtcy.D.Mass.1982) Clearly, the Debtors knew the financial statement was false. Therefore, based on the foregoing, the debt should be determined to be nondischargeable.

Driscoll's Towing Service, Inc. v. United States (In Re Driscoll's Towing Service, Inc.)

43 B.R. 647 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. · Oct 24, 1984

The Court is convinced that the DEBTOR has established a sufficient stake in the outcome of this action. … The Court sees no reason to create such an overly burdensome situation for both the principals of the corporate debtors and the Court itself when injunctive relief is clearly available.

In Re Henderson

167 B.R. 67 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jul 15, 1993

Without question, this statute, which became effective on July 1,1991, clearly applies to SEP-IRA’s which are qualified under § 408 of the Internal Revenue Code. … It clearly held the cash surrender values could not be claimed as exempt against a claim for alimony and support.

Pirinate Consulting Group, LLC v. Maryland Department of the Environment (In re Newpage Corp.)

555 B.R. 444 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Aug 4, 2016

This rule is clearly inapplicable to Environmental Fees as MDE did not supply the Debtors with post-petition goods. … Sovereign Immunity MDE’s’ final assertion is that the doctrine of sovereign immunity insulates a state entity from liability in situations such as these.