Case law

In re Sanders

521 B.R. 739 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Carolina · Sep 26, 2014

See Till v. … Supreme Court in United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, the Court agrees with the Trustee and finds that the Plan is not confirmable as a result of this defect.

In Re Coates

180 B.R. 110 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Carolina · Mar 9, 1995

RETAIL v. … See In re Coker, 973 F.2d 258 , 260 (4th Cir.1992); Brown & Co. Sec. Corp. v. Balbus (In re Balbus), 933 F.2d 246, 251-52 (4th Cir.1991).

Gordon v. Rogich (In re Alpha Protective Services, Inc.)

570 B.R. 888 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Georgia · Apr 24, 2017

In Gordon v. … In Kelley v.

Jennings v. Bodrick (In re Bodrick)

534 B.R. 738 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 17, 2015

Res., Inc. v. Shelby Ins. Co., 84 F.3d 211, 213-14 (6th Cir.1996); Hauser v. … Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127 , 139 n. 10, 99 S.Ct. 2205 , 60 L.Ed.2d 767 (1979) (emphasis added). See also J.Z.G. Res., Inc., 84 F.3d at 214 .

Dials v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (In re Dials)

575 B.R. 137 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 30, 2017

See Johnson’s Island, Inc. v. Board of Township Trustees, 69 Ohio St.2d 241 , 431 N.E.2d 672 , 674 (1982) (establishing the same doctrine for res judicata as the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit). … Zirkand v. Brown, 478 F.3d 634 , 638 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Gomez v. Kamper Investments, LLC (In Re Gomez)

388 B.R. 279 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 3, 2008

In re Brown, 282 B.R. 880, 882-83 (Bankr.E.D.Ark.2002). … In Brown , after examining the legislative history of § 1322 the Court noted that “[ujnder Arkansas law, a judicial foreclosure sale is complete upon confirmation of the sale by the court.” Id. (citing Dellinger v.

Williams v. Keown (In re Keown)

28 B.R. 949 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 1983

Simon v. Beeck, 300 Pa. 384 , 150 A. 640 (1930); Wally v. Wally, 286 Pa. 413 , 133 A. 627 (1926). Contracts required by a Statute of Frauds to be in writing may not be modified by parol. Brown v. … Aiken, 329 Pa. 566 , 198 A. 441 (1938); Edelstein v. Carole House Apts., 220 Pa.Super. 298 , 286 A.2d 658 (1971).

Galerie Des Monnaies of Geneva, Ltd. v. Deutsche Bank, A.G., New York Branch (In Re Galerie Des Monnaies of Geneva, Ltd.)

55 B.R. 253 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Nov 22, 1985

Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 , 101 S.Ct. 411, 414-15 , 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980); Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 , 99 S.Ct. 645, 649 , 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979); Brown v. … Davis v. Wakelee, 156 U.S. 680, 689 , 15 S.Ct. 555, 558 , 39 L.Ed. 578 (1895); Allen v. Zurich Insurance Co., 667 F.2d 1162, 1166-67 (4th Cir.1982); Scarano v. Central R.

Hyundai-Wia Machine America Corp. v. Rouette (In re Rouette)

564 B.R. 157 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 17, 2017

See Deitz v. … Hyundai retained Withum Smith+Brown, P.C. (“Withum”), a forensic accounting firm, to analyze QMSI’s QuickBooks’ file.

In Re Smith

269 B.R. 629 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Texas · Oct 29, 2001

See, e.g., Winter v. … v.

In Re Graven

101 B.R. 109 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Missouri · May 23, 1989

Graven executed a bill of sale to Graven Auction Company, Inc. covering 169 head of Holstein and Brown Swiss dairy cattle, 5 motor vehicles, 4 tractors, and all the equipment that comprised their dairy operation. … See Jennings v. Suggs, 180 Ga. 141 , 178 S.E. 282 (1935), Ewing v. Union Central Bank, 254 Ky. 623 , 72 S.W.2d 4 (1934). If such an interpretation is permissible, then this is a ease where it is appropriate.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Moll Industries, Inc. v. Highland Capital Management L.P. (In Re Moll Industries, Inc.)

454 B.R. 574 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Aug 3, 2011

Trevino v. … Trust v.

In re ADPT DFW Holdings LLC

577 B.R. 232 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 29, 2017

Article V of the Plan provides the means for implementing the Plan. … New Board of Reorganized Debtors 23.

Romo v. Montemayor (In re Montemayor)

547 B.R. 684 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 9, 2016

In re Brown, 807 F.3d 701, 709-10 (5th Cir.2015). … Long v.

In Re Branagan, Jr.

345 B.R. 144 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 12, 2006

Thibodeau v. United States, 828 F.2d 1499, 1503 (11th Cir.1987); see, e.g., Brown v. United States, 591 F.2d 1136, 1138 (5th Cir.1979). … See, e.g., Brown v.

Galaxy Associates v. Sheffield Corp. (In re Galaxy Associates)

114 B.R. 11 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut · May 14, 1990

Armstrong v. McAlpin, 625 F.2d 433, 444 (2d Cir.1980), vacated, 449 U.S. 1106 , 101 S.Ct. 911 , 66 L.Ed.2d 835 (1981). As the court in Lamborn v. … Board of Ed. v. Nyquist, 590 F.2d 1241 , 1246 (2d Cir.1979); United States Football League v. National Football League, 605 F.Supp. 1448, 1452 (S.D.N.Y.1985).

Williford v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education (In Re Williford)

300 B.R. 70 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 8, 2003

See United States v. Brown (In re Brown), 18 B.R. 219, 222 (Bankr.D.Kan.1982), cited with approval in Hatfield v. William D. Ford Fed. … The next case, Ritchie v. Northwest Educ. Loan Ass’n.

Nahman v. Jacks (In Re Jacks)

243 B.R. 385 · United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California · Dec 29, 1999

Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127, 133-138 , 99 S.Ct. 2205, 2211-13 , 60 L.Ed.2d 767 (1979). Issue preclusion applies only to issues that were actually litigated. … Brown, 442 U.S. at 130-31 , 99 S.Ct. at 2209 . In this case, Jacks must prevail on the fraud claim under § 523(a)(2).

In Re P.J. Keating Co.

168 B.R. 464 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 17, 1994

to electing the rest of the board. … Co. v. Monnier Bros.

In re Southern Humboldt Community Healthcare District

254 B.R. 758 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · Oct 9, 2000

On March 23, 1998, the District’s board of directors authorized the District to borrow $663,824.00 from the Bank for the purpose of paying off the line of credit and the overdrafts and keeping the District operating until … V. Conclusion The validity of the Bank’s claim is not properly before the court.