Case law

In Re Sundance Corporation, Inc.

149 B.R. 641 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Washington · Jan 13, 1993

Judicial immunity was an established, essential element of the judicial power of the sovereign when the United States Constitution was adopted, and the concept is inherent in our judicial branch of government. … CERCLA’s language does not clearly and unequivocally waive federal judicial immunity and, in the absence of specific language to this effect, this court declines to interpret the statute as creating a serious constitutional

Huffine v. California State University-Chico (In Re Huffine)

246 B.R. 405 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 10, 2000

In order to effectuate a waiver of sovereign immunity, the congressionally imposed condition that the state do so must be clearly expressed. … A cursory reading of Atascadero and Seminole would seem to imply that, even when acting pursuant to its spending power, Congress must clearly express in the statutory language the condition that sovereign immunity be waived

In Re Samaniego

224 B.R. 154 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 13, 1998

The State of Washington has established procedures for collection of past due real estate taxes. … Delivery and recording of the Treasurer’s deeds are clearly acts to obtain possession of that bare legal title from the estate and establish control over it.

In Re Symons Frozen Foods Inc.

425 B.R. 589 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 5, 2010

Watts therefore does not qualify as a PACA trust beneficiary. … This language clearly indicates that the separate writing requirement applies in the context of an agency relationship that arises before the transaction that creates the PACA trust, not in the context of the fiduciary duty

Bryce v. Lawrence (In re Bryce)

491 B.R. 157 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 1, 2013

The creditor must clearly disclose the rescission right to the debtor. 15 U.S.C. § 1635 (a). … Although the Defendants did submit a response, the response was clearly incomplete.

Schafer v. Las Vegas Hilton (In Re Video Depot, Ltd.)

186 B.R. 126 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 29, 1995

Second, the minimum level of control necessary to qualify as initial transferee is the right to put the money to one’s own purpose. … Clearly the debtor and Airbrush were not conduits, because the debtor had full control over the funds.

In Re Hofstee

88 B.R. 308 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 3, 1988

Furthermore, the obtaining of the funds also rests upon the slaughter of the herd (which is clearly property of the estate) and not using the real estate or dairy barn (again clearly property of the estate). … Such amount, if established, has obviously been at the expense of the debtors’ right to a “fresh *314 start” under the equitable principles of bankruptcy law.

Committee of Tort Litigants v. Catholic Diocese of Spokane (In Re the Catholic Bishop of Spokane)

329 B.R. 304 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 26, 2005

(b) Has the Debtor Established an Express Trust? R.C.W. 24.12 clearly authorizes the corporate sole to exercise civil legal rights, including the right to establish trusts 6 . … Clearly, issues of fact exist.

Hammond v. Gee (In Re Gee)

156 B.R. 291 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 28, 1993

TRIAL At trial 6 Hammond, a community college student and part-time model, testified about her hiring by Gee as a receptionist for Star Limousine, over better qualified applicants (whose resumes- she later filed), apparently … The evidence clearly established that Gee made sexual advances on Hammond (uncontested) which included physical contact (the parties differ on the extent).

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Courson (In Re Courson)

409 B.R. 516 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 24, 2009

This definition clearly applies to Buxton, “a person having an interest ... in the collateral, whether or not the person is an obligor.” … Therefore those checks do not qualify as “proceeds” of Wells Fargo’s collateral under R.C.W. 62A.9A-102(64)(E).

Miller v. Apfel-Wilson (In Re Apfel-Wilson)

165 B.R. 939 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 29, 1994

The second and third elements are clearly satisfied in this ease. More troublesome is the first element, which requires that the identical, determinative issues were in fact litigated in the prior proceeding. Beagles v. … Further, in In re Kirsh, 973 F.2d 1454 (9th Cir.1992), the Ninth Circuit established a requirement that the plaintiffs reliance on the debtor’s statements be justified.

Farmer v. Navient Solutions, LLC (In re Farmer)

567 B.R. 895 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Washington · May 4, 2017

The Bankruptcy Code clearly categorizes such claims as core matters. 28 U.S.C. § 157 (b)(2)(I). Navient presents no argument to the contrary. … This proceeding involves only the question of whether the Loan qualifies as the type of loan described in , subsection (a)(8).

In Re Kandu

315 B.R. 123 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 17, 2004

The Supreme Court has identified the nature of rights that qualify for heightened judicial protection. … The legislative history clearly reveals that the primary purpose of DOMA is to restrict marriage to one man and one woman.

Brown v. Morton (In Re Workboats Northwest, Inc.)

201 B.R. 563 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 27, 1996

As to the consideration qualifying for the subsequent new value exception, [It] may include more than goods sold on unsecured credit or money lent. … The defendants have established the new value defense to a preferential transfer. 2.

Logan v. Ahlbrecht (In Re Logan)

195 B.R. 769 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Washington · Feb 2, 1996

Carter, 83 Wash.2d 136 , 516 P.2d 767 (1973) clearly demonstrates the broad parameters of Washington’s interpretation of consumer goods. … The court rejected that argument, pointing out that Washington ease law has clearly established that the intention of the annexor is the most important factor of consideration and that such intent is determined from the circumstances

United States v. McBroom (In re Camco)

2 B.R. 239 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Washington · Jan 18, 1980

This connecting link is clearly established by three distinct instruments. On June 29, 1970 Cameo unconditionally guaranteed payment at all times of any and all indebtedness then or thereafter owed by FDS to the Bank. … Read together they clearly show that the security interest in Cameo’s inventory flowed to the SBA.

Bossert v. United States (In Re Bossert)

201 B.R. 553 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 16, 1996

Section 507 establishes a priority scheme for paying claims. … Because they were punitive, rather than compensatory, these pre-filing penalties did not qualify for priority treatment under the terms of § 507(a)(7)(G). Ibid.

In Re Columbia Plastics, Inc.

251 B.R. 580 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 12, 2000

A trustee seeking compensation has the burden of establishing that he or she is entitled to the fees requested. … As the trustee bears the burden of proof in a fee application matter, it is not asking too much of the trustee to clearly inform the court as to the work that he or she performed.

In re Fraser's Boiler Serv., Inc.

593 B.R. 636 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 20, 2018

The decision of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Montana in Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC is instructive on this issue: This court is bound by, and does not dispute the legal precedent established in Lowenschuss … "[T]he lines separating actions protected by immunity from actionable conduct are neither clearly nor easily drawn." Id. "[D]ecisions in this area have arrived at varied and often inconsistent results." Id. at 479 .

Ellis v. Mirghanbari (In re Pittman)

540 B.R. 451 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 4, 2015

“Clearly, the legislature’s choice of different language” in RCW 30A.22.090(1) and (2) “indicates a different legislative intent.” Conover, 355 P.3d at 1097 . … In addition, RCW 30A.22.020(2) specifically provides that one of the purposes of the Deposit Act is to “qualify and simplify the law concerning the respective ownership interests of individuals to funds held on deposit by