Case law

Barber v. Bettendorf Bank, N.A. (In Re Pearson Industries, Inc.)

152 B.R. 546 · United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 15, 1993

His recovery based on a violation of the CORPORATION ACT clearly is under state law. … The subjective test, now clearly representing the minority view, still finds some support.

D. Federico Co. v. New Bedford Redevelopment Authority (In Re D. Federico Co.)

16 B.R. 282 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 29, 1981

I find that enough of the pier was in place in the Spring of 1974 to put a prudent and qualified engineer on notice that the wharf walls were not constructed simply of stone on timber cribbing, that the east end *288 of the … Furthermore, the evidence introduced at the trial clearly revealed that these alleged defects were not discovered within the year.

Tronox Inc. v. Kerr McGee Corp. (In re Tronox Inc.)

503 B.R. 239 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Dec 12, 2013

There was some earlier language in the decision that fraud "must be clearly established in the record by testimony and it must appear affirmatively to a reasonable certainty that ... the conveyance was made with intent in … Although the use of language, such as "clearly established” and "to a reasonable certainty” are present in the opinion, the Lev-inson court did not expressly adopt the clear and convincing evidence standard.

Keast Enterprises Inc.

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Iowa · Feb 24, 2020

The Vorthmanns ignore the terms of the Purchase Agreement that clearly state that they, as the Sellers, granted all of the identified easements in their own real estate. … A determination that the MSA qualifies as an express easement, or an easement by implication, necessity or prescription is not supported by the record.

Shannon v. Russell (In Re Russell)

203 B.R. 303 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. California · Dec 18, 1996

Clearly, Plaintiffs could not observe or sense the problems with the foundation under their feet as they inspected the home. … But in the same breath, Reed also admitted that the water could have come from the “plumbing breaks,” which the record establishes in fact actually occurred.

Miller & Miller Auctioneers, Inc. v. Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers International, L.P. (In Re Missouri Properties, Ltd.)

211 B.R. 914 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Missouri · Dec 16, 1996

Clearly, the proceeding had been commenced. In fact, the matter had been tried to a jury and a verdict rendered. … Section 157 of the United States Code establishes procedures authorizing a District Court to refer bankruptcy. matters to the Bankruptcy Court for that District. 28 U.S.C. § 157 (a). 3 .

In Re Delaware River Stevedores, Inc.

147 B.R. 864 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1992

Also, Judge Gawthrop, possibly qualifying his strong statement of the right and duty of bankruptcy judges to review fee applications sua sponte in In re Rheam of Indiana, Inc., 138 B.R. 325, 330-33 (E.D.Pa.1991) (“Rheam III … This court’s guidelines for requests for reimbursements of costs are clearly set forth in In re Mayflower Associates, 78 B.R. 41, 47-48 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1987).

Santos v. U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (In Re Santos)

97 B.R. 227 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 13, 1989

HUD then decides whether the mortgagor qualifies for an assignment by applying certain stated criteria. … During this forbearing period, the homeowners need not pay more than an established percentage (35%) of net income to HUD, taking into account relevant expenses.

Caffey v. Russell (In Re Caffey)

384 B.R. 297 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Alabama · Jan 28, 2008

A “causal link between the willful conduct in violation of the stay and the harm must be clearly established or readily apparent” in order to award actual damages for emotional distress. … Under the Bankruptcy Code’s provision for authorizing recovery for a willful violation of the stay, emotional damages qualify as “actual damages.” In re Dawson, 390 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir.2004); Fleet Mort. Group, Inc. v.

Maple v. Colonial Orthopaedics, Inc. (In Re Maple)

434 B.R. 363 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 21, 2010

Similarly, the VPIPA requires only an intent to communicate that which was disclosed in order to qualify a communication as “intentional.” … Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegation that Defendant’s “supporting documentation clearly shows a potential claim for at most $289,” (Pis.’ Am.

In Re ACE Elevator Co., Inc.

347 B.R. 473 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jun 23, 2006

The claimed priority’s purpose needs to be clear from the statute, because “ ‘[t]o give priority to a claimant not clearly entitled thereto is not only inconsistent with the policy of equality of distribution; it dilutes … Counsel for the Trustees also acknowledged that the “health benefits and the pension benefits are based on hours worked in the year, and that's how you qualify.” Tr. at 13. 13 .

Esposito v. Noyes (In Re Lake Country Investments, Ltd. Liability Co.)

255 B.R. 588 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Idaho · Sep 19, 2000

Esposito declaration and Fasnacht affidavit Rule 56(e) requires that the affidavits be “made on personal knowledge,” that they set forth facts admissible in evidence, and that they affirmatively show that the affiant is qualified … Idaho Code § 55-913 clearly provides standing to both. 30 The question presented in regard to this claim for relief, rather, is whether Esposi-to has met his burden to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to either

In Re Zurface

95 B.R. 527 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 11, 1989

Donald Zurface, Jr.’s dominance of the corporate affairs of H-D from the date of H-D’s incorporation until the present time was established by the record. 30. … In order to qualify for such a tax-free exchange, Debtors would have had to retain at least fifty percent (50%) control over H-D (Tr. 267-69). 35.

Chartwell Litigation Trust v. Addus Healthcare, Inc. (In Re Med Diversified, Inc.)

346 B.R. 621 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · Aug 2, 2006

Under Fed.R.Evid. 702, an expert must also be qualified as an expert in order for his or her testimony to be admissible as expert testimony. … The Court found that Cimasi was qualified as an expert and defendants did not take issue with his qualifications in this motion. 11 .

In Re Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.

230 B.R. 715 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Louisiana · Feb 11, 1999

The court finds that this factor clearly weighs in favor of approving the settlement. (c)Arm’s Length Bargaining. … While he did not qualify as an “expert” under Rule 702, Fed.R.Evid., his testimony was certainly admissible under Rule 701 107 . Objections to Mr.

Matter of Berryhill

127 B.R. 427 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · May 7, 1991

In the absence of objection, the order of October 25 clearly and unambiguously required the debtors to do one of two things by a date certain. … Nonetheless, “[t]he debt- or has time after time failed to comply with the Court’s Orders, the Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, and it simply no longer qualifies for any additional leniency.”

Conti v. Coastal Warranty, LLC (In re NC & VA Warranty Co.)

556 B.R. 182 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 19, 2016

The agreement further and clearly contemplates that the reserves are subject to the terms of the Assurance Agreement, stating that the Reserve Account shall be sufficient “to satisfy [Dealers Assurance’s] requirements and … Westex Foods), 950 F.2d 1187 , 1195 (5th Cir.1992) (“The purpose of a transfer is not dispositive of the question whether it qualifies as an avoidable preference under section 547(b) because ‘it is the effect of the transaction

Samuel Lee Crilly and Kimberly Deane Crilly

United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 30, 2020

Debtors’ own financial witness clearly established the lack of feasibility to fund a plan paying the Jacks in full. … Here, Debtors did not establish any reason for this Court to exercise its discretion to extend the stay – Debtors presented no evidence of the contents of a confirmable plan, Debtors appear to not qualify for subchapter

Coan v. Andersen (In Re Andersen)

166 B.R. 516 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut · May 6, 1994

Neustadt, 177 Conn. 191, 209 , 413 A.2d 843 (1979) (“Courts will ... disregard the fiction of a separate legal entity to pierce the shield of immunity afforded by the corporate structure in a situation in which the corporate … A general partner of a limited partnership owes at least a qualified fiduciary duty to his or her limited partners; that duty may be more or less exacting depending on the circumstances of the transaction.

In re: Jason Aaron Williamson

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 1, 2026

The Debtors, as the moving party, bear the burden to establish the grounds set forth in the Motions, and such grounds “must be clearly substantiated by adequate proof.” … established in a proper proceeding”).