11 U.S.C. § 362

271 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• A.H. Robins Co. v. Piccinin
  788 F.2d 994· 4th Cir.· 1986-04-10 ·cited 104×
  The court held that bankruptcy courts have broad power to enjoin suits against non-debtors when such suits could affect the bankruptcy estate, either under statutory provisions like 11 U.S.C. § 362 and § 105, or under general equitable powers.
• In re Comer v. Comer
  716 F.2d 168· 3d Cir.· 1983-08-26 ·cited 80×
  The court held that an order lifting the automatic stay in a bankruptcy case is a final order for purposes of appeal. It also held that the district court correctly determined that sale proceeds were applied to unsecured debts based on the creditors' conduct.
• In re Thomas v. Thomas
  883 F.2d 991· 11th Cir.· 1989-09-15 ·cited 70×
  The court held that SouthTrust's lien on the mobile home was not voided by the debtors' Chapter 13 plan confirmation, and SouthTrust was entitled to relief from the stay to pursue its detinue action.
• In re Sambo's Rests., Inc. v. Wheeler
  754 F.2d 811· 9th Cir.· 1985-02-13 ·cited 62×
  The court held that a complaint filed in violation of the automatic stay can constitute an amendable informal proof of claim, and that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in disallowing the amendment.
• Fortier v. Dona Anna Plaza P'rs
  747 F.2d 1324· 10th Cir.· 1984-12-17 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Act does not extend to solvent co-defendants of the debtor, and that evidentiary rulings were either waived, cured, or did not affect substantial rights.
• In re Holtkamp v. Littlefield
  669 F.2d 505· 7th Cir.· 1982-02-01 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in lifting the automatic stay to allow a pending personal injury suit to proceed to judgment, nor did it err in the conduct of the emergency hearing.
• Assoc. of ST. Croix Condo. Owners v. ST. Croix Hotel Corp.
  682 F.2d 446· 3d Cir.· 1982-07-06 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362 prevents the court from proceeding with the appeal because the original action was brought against the debtor, regardless of whether the debtor is the appellant or appellee.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. First Fin. Grp. OF Tex.
  645 F.2d 429· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-20 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the preponderance of the evidence standard applies to SEC preliminary injunctions and that the district court had jurisdiction to appoint a receiver despite a pending bankruptcy petition.
• In re Albany P'rs, Ltd. v. W.P. Westbrook, Jr.
  749 F.2d 670· 11th Cir.· 1984-12-26 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court did not err in granting relief from the automatic stay and dismissing the Chapter 11 petition for lack of good faith, and that the bankruptcy court had the power to annul the stay retroactively.
• Richmond Leasing Co. v. Cap. Bank, N.A.
  762 F.2d 1303· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-17 ·cited 56×
  The court affirmed the district court's approval of the debtor's assumption of an amended lease, finding it a valid exercise of business judgment under § 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.
• In re Bialac v. Bialac
  712 F.2d 426· 9th Cir.· 1983-08-04 ·cited 56×
  A pre-foreclosure right to redeem collateral, even if held by a debtor with only a fractional interest, constitutes 'property of the estate' protected by the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362.
• Penn Terra Ltd. v. Dep't OF Env't Res.
  733 F.2d 267· 3d Cir.· 1984-04-30 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the Commonwealth's action to compel environmental cleanup falls under the police and regulatory power exception to the automatic stay, and is not an enforcement of a money judgment.
• In re Tex. Mortg. Servs. Corp. v. Guadalupe Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  761 F.2d 1068· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-03 ·cited 51×
  The court held that Guadalupe Savings & Loan is estopped from denying the enforceability of its promise to maintain the certificates of deposit as trust funds, affirming the district court's turnover order.
• Ned Wedgeworth, Jr. v. Fibreboard Corp.
  706 F.2d 541· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-24 ·cited 51×
  The automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 does not extend to co-defendants of a debtor in bankruptcy, and discretionary stays are not warranted when plaintiffs face significant hardship and proceedings are indefinite. Leave to amend to add liability insurers under the Louisiana Di
• In re Reuben F. Leimer v. Reuben F. Leimer
  724 F.2d 744· 8th Cir.· 1984-01-12 ·cited 50×
  The court held that an order denying relief from a bankruptcy stay is a final order, and thus the district court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
• Browning v. Navarro
  743 F.2d 1069· 5th Cir.· 1984-10-01 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the parties complied with the bankruptcy court's remand order, the automatic stay was lifted, and the state court judgment was not void.
• In re Sewanee Land v. Lamb
  735 F.2d 1294· 11th Cir.· 1984-07-06 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the appeal is moot because the debtor failed to obtain a stay pending appeal, and the property has been sold at foreclosure to the creditors.
• In re Castlerock Props. v. Castlerock Props.
  781 F.2d 159· 9th Cir.· 1986-01-23 ·cited 42×
  The court held that under the 1984 Act, the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to enter final judgment on state law contract counterclaims classified as 'related proceedings,' and that filing a proof of claim did not constitute consent to jurisdiction when objections were raise
• Domenico Tringali v. Hathaway Mach. Co., Inc.
  796 F.2d 553· 1st Cir.· 1986-06-30 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment on tort liability but reversed the order lifting the automatic stay in the bankruptcy proceeding, finding insufficient cause shown.
• In re State OF Mo. v. U. S. Bankr. Court FOR the E. D. OF Ark. & the Hon. Charles W. Baker
  647 F.2d 768· 8th Cir.· 1981-04-08 ·cited 36×
  The bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction over the grain and warehouses, and state proceedings to enforce pecuniary interests are stayed.
• In re Madrid v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp.
  725 F.2d 1197· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-13 ·cited 34×
  A nonjudicial foreclosure sale is not a voidable transfer under 11 U.S.C. § 548 if the debtor did not participate in the transaction.
• Barona Grp. OF the Capitan Grande Band OF Mission Indians v. Am. Mgmt. & Amusement, Inc.
  824 F.2d 710· 9th Cir.· 1987-08-07 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the 1983 tribal bingo management agreement was null and void under 25 U.S.C. § 81 because it was not approved by the Secretary of the Interior or the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment.
• Lincoln Lynch v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
  710 F.2d 1194· 6th Cir.· 1983-07-01 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code does not extend to solvent co-defendants of a Chapter 11 debtor, nor are such co-defendants indispensable parties requiring a stay of proceedings.
• In re Met-L-Wood Corp. v. Pipin
  861 F.2d 1012· 7th Cir.· 1988-11-08 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trustee's suit was barred by res judicata and collateral attack, and his motion to vacate the sale under Rule 60(b) was untimely and did not fall under the 'fraud upon the court' exception.
• United States v. Nicolet, Inc.
  857 F.2d 202· 3d Cir.· 1988-09-16 ·cited 30×
  The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that the automatic bankruptcy stay did not apply to the government's CERCLA action to recover costs for cleaning up a hazardous waste site, even though the complaint sought a money judgment for pre-petition expenditures. The court affirmed
• In re James Wilson Assocs.
  965 F.2d 160· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-22 ·cited 28×
  The court held that Metropolitan had standing as a landlord to complain about JWA's failure to assume its lease.
• Nicholas and Virginia Maiorino v. Branford Sav. Bank
  691 F.2d 89· 2d Cir.· 1982-10-07 ·cited 28×
  Parties cannot agree to a direct appeal to the court of appeals from an interlocutory order of a bankruptcy court, as jurisdiction is limited to final judgments, orders, or decrees.
• In re Onouli-Kona Land Co. v. Est. OF Hubert F. Richards
  846 F.2d 1170· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-17 ·cited 27×
  The court held that an appeal from a bankruptcy court's order confirming a sale of assets is moot if the appellant failed to obtain a stay of the sale order pending appeal, unless the sale of real property was to a creditor who is a party to the appeal and the sale is subject to
• Mar. Elec. Co., Inc. v. United Jersey Bank
  959 F.2d 1194· 3d Cir.· 1991-12-02 ·cited 26×
  The New Jersey district court retained subject matter jurisdiction over claims related to a bankruptcy case filed in another district, and its proceedings were not automatically voided by the bankruptcy filing.
• In re W. Elecs. Inc. Appeal of United States
  852 F.2d 79· 3d Cir.· 1988-07-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the automatic stay should be lifted to allow the government to terminate a contract with a debtor in possession because the Nonassignment Act, 41 U.S.C. § 15, prevents assumption of the contract by the debtor without government consent, and 11 U.S.C. § 365(c)(
• In re S.I. Acquisition, Inc. v. Eastway Delivery Serv., Inc.
  817 F.2d 1142· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that an alter ego claim brought by a creditor against non-bankrupt defendants, based on their control of a debtor corporation, is stayed under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3) because such a claim is considered property of the debtor's estate.
• In re 405 N. Bedford DR. Corp. v. 405 N. Bedford DR. Corp.
  778 F.2d 1374· 9th Cir.· 1985-12-17 ·cited 25×
  The court held that neither the bankruptcy court's denial of a motion to dismiss for bad faith nor its grant of a motion to cure defaults under 11 U.S.C. § 1124 constitutes a final, appealable order.
• In re Ezella M. Taylor v. Ezella M. Taylor
  884 F.2d 478· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-05 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a bankruptcy court order lifting the automatic stay is invalid if entered after the underlying bankruptcy case has been dismissed, and that creditors who violate the automatic stay with knowledge of the bankruptcy filing are liable for damages, even if they re
• In re Dogpatch U.S.A., Inc. v. Dogpatch U.S.A., Inc.
  810 F.2d 782· 8th Cir.· 1987-02-02 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over the S&Ls' counterclaim against Dogpatch Properties, Inc. (DPI) and the third-party complaint against the Odoms because these proceedings were 'related to' the Chapter 11 case and could affect the administration of the
• Bankruptcy v. Mgic Fin. Corp.
  437 So. 2d 191· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-09-07 ·cited 24×
  In this bankruptcy and foreclosure appeal, the court held that findings of a bankruptcy court regarding relief from automatic stay do not have res judicata or collateral estoppel effect in a subsequent foreclosure proceeding in state circuit court. The appellants' affidavit raisi
• In re Smith Corset Shops, Inc.
  696 F.2d 971· 1st Cir.· 1982-12-27 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Brodeurs were not liable for conversion because they acted without notice of the bankruptcy petition and Smith's silence contributed to their ignorance, and that the appellate panel erred in finding conversion based on post-bankruptcy actions not properly
• Grundy Nat'l Bank v. Tandem Mining Corp.
  754 F.2d 1436· 4th Cir.· 1985-02-15 ·cited 23×
  The court held that a secured creditor is entitled to interest on periodic payments made for adequate protection during Chapter 11 proceedings, and that an order denying relief from the automatic stay is a final appealable order.
• Budget Serv. Co. & Allen Bunch v. Better Homes OF Va., Inc.
  804 F.2d 289· 4th Cir.· 1986-11-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that sanctions under 11 U.S.C. § 362(h) are appropriate for a willful violation of the automatic stay, and the term 'individual' in that section includes corporate debtors.
• In re Mac Donald v. Mac Donald
  755 F.2d 715· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-12 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in granting relief from the automatic stay to allow a spousal support modification action to proceed in state court.
• In re Sonnax Indus., Inc. v. TRI Component Prods. Corp.
  907 F.2d 1280· 2d Cir.· 1990-06-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that denial of a motion to lift the automatic stay in bankruptcy is a final, appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief.
• In re 48TH St. Steakhouse, Inc. v. Rockefeller Grp., Inc.
  835 F.2d 427· 2d Cir.· 1987-12-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a landlord's attempt to terminate a prime lease, which would inevitably result in the termination of a debtor sublessee's interest, violates the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code and is void.
• In re Dembs v. Dembs
  757 F.2d 777· 6th Cir.· 1985-03-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a creditor cannot pursue exempted property after the debtor's discharge, as the discharge date itself served as the operative time limit for objections in the absence of specific rules or orders.
• Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass'n OF Am. v. Butler
  803 F.2d 61· 2d Cir.· 1986-10-09 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 applies to a debtor's appeal, but not to non-debtor co-defendants acting in bad faith. The court also affirmed the district court's sanctions.
• LEE v. Schweiker
  739 F.2d 870· 3d Cir.· 1984-06-29 ·cited 19×
  The Social Security Administration (SSA) cannot recoup pre-bankruptcy overpayments from a debtor's post-petition benefit checks due to the automatic stay, but it can retain pre-petition deductions as they do not violate the 'improvement in position' test.
• Ellis v. Consol. Diesel Elec. Corp.
  894 F.2d 371· 10th Cir.· 1990-01-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a judgment entered in violation of the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code is void and cannot be appealed.
• In re Hwy. Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union # 107. Appeal of Ronald & Frances Gajkowski
  888 F.2d 293· 3d Cir.· 1989-10-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the appeal was moot because a subsequent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision reversed the prior judgment, rendering the appellate court unable to grant effective relief.
• In re Saylors v. Saylors
  869 F.2d 1434· 11th Cir.· 1989-04-10 ·cited 18×
  A chapter 13 plan may cure a home mortgage arrearage even after the debtor received a chapter 7 discharge of the underlying debt, as the debt transforms into a nonrecourse obligation and the debtor retains equitable redemption rights.
• In re Boomgarden
  780 F.2d 657· 7th Cir.· 1985-12-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court's order lifting the automatic stay was a final order, and that the debtor was afforded due process and that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in lifting the stay.
• In re PCH Assocs. v. PCH Assocs.
  949 F.2d 585· 2d Cir.· 1991-11-19 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the prior determination that the relationship was a joint venture did not preclude Liona from asserting its interest as a secured creditor, and that Liona holds an equitable mortgage, entitling it to priority.
• In re W. Real Est. Fund, Inc. v. The First Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. OF Tulsa
  922 F.2d 592· 10th Cir.· 1990-12-28 ·cited 17×
  The court held that rejection of an executory contract constitutes a breach, entitling the non-breaching party to contract damages under state law, and that a permanent injunction against a creditor pursuing a non-debtor is improper under the Bankruptcy Code.