28 U.S.C. § 157

26 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• In re Wood v. Dr. James P. Wood, Carol Wood, Woodrow Barham & Wayne Clinic, P.A.
  825 F.2d 90· 5th Cir.· 1987-08-26 ·cited 87×
  A proceeding is a core bankruptcy proceeding if it invokes a substantive right provided by Title 11 or is a proceeding that could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case; otherwise, it is a non-core proceeding.
• Howell Hydrocarbons, Inc. v. Adams
  897 F.2d 183· 5th Cir.· 1990-03-27 ·cited 25×
  The court held that while res judicata did not bar Howell's claims, summary judgment was proper because Howell failed to present sufficient evidence of a pattern of racketeering activity required for a RICO claim.
• Barnett v. Burton L. Stern
  909 F.2d 973· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-02 ·cited 23×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeals of Barnett and Liss due to defects in their notice of appeal, but reversed the district court's res judicata dismissal of Levit's RICO claim against Todd Stern, finding it was not a core bankruptcy proceeding.
• In re G.S.F. Corp.
  938 F.2d 1467· 1st Cir.· 1991-07-23 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in vacating the bankruptcy court's injunction, as the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue the injunction to protect its prior judgment and the G.S.F. estate.
• In re Sequoia Auto Brokers, Ltd., Inc. v. Ira P. Idell
  827 F.2d 1281· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-14 ·cited 20×
  Bankruptcy judges do not have the statutory authority to issue civil contempt orders; such power has not been expressly or impliedly conferred by Congress.
• In re Wolverine Radio Co. v. Wolverine Radio Co., Inc.
  930 F.2d 1132· 6th Cir.· 1991-04-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that bankruptcy courts have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) over disputes "related to" a bankruptcy case, even if they involve non-debtors, and that this proceeding was a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).
• In re Skinner v. Skinner
  917 F.2d 444· 10th Cir.· 1990-10-22 ·cited 12×
  Bankruptcy courts have statutory and constitutional authority to exercise civil contempt powers and impose monetary sanctions, and such sanctions were appropriate in this case.
• Jefferson Nat'l Bank v. I.A. Durbin
  62 B.R. 139· S.D. Fla.· 1986-04-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Durbin's counterclaim was a core proceeding and Kail impliedly consented to bankruptcy court jurisdiction, and neither party had a right to a jury trial in bankruptcy court.
• In re Case v. Case
  937 F.2d 1014· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court properly reopened the estate and adjudicated the dispute as a core proceeding, but erred in declaring sanctions non-dischargeable without proper procedure. Sanctions against an attorney for state court actions were also improper under § 19
• Marill Alarm Sys., Inc. v. Equity Funding Corp. (In Re Marill Alarm Sys.
  81 B.R. 119· S.D. Fla.· 1987-12-01 ·cited 8×
  The district court held that the bankruptcy judge's final judgment was invalid due to lack of jurisdiction because the judge failed to determine if the proceeding was core or non-core. The court conducted a de novo review and adopted the bankruptcy judge's findings regarding usur
• In re Johnson v. Finnman
  960 F.2d 396· 4th Cir.· 1992-03-26 ·cited 7×
  The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to determine the beneficiaries and distribute a constructive trust, and parties can waive objections to jurisdiction by failing to raise them timely.
• In re Vylene Enters., Inc. v. Naugles, Inc.
  968 F.2d 887· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-29 ·cited 6×
  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Vylene's appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the district court's order vacating the bankruptcy court's judgment and remanding the case did not constitute a final order under the applicable statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1
• In re Town & Country Home Nursing Servs., Inc. v. Town & Country Home Nursing Servs., Inc.
  963 F.2d 1146· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government's post-petition offset of T&C's assets, even without filing a formal proof of claim, constituted a waiver of sovereign immunity under 11 U.S.C. § 106(a) and was the functional equivalent of filing a claim.
• In re Axona Int'l Credit & Commerce Ltd. (Formerly Bancom Int'l Limited) v. Togut
  924 F.2d 31· 2d Cir.· 1991-01-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appeal must be dismissed for want of appellate jurisdiction because the 1990 amendment to 11 U.S.C. § 305(c) expressly deprives courts of appeals of jurisdiction to review bankruptcy court orders dismissing or suspending proceedings under § 305(a).
• In re Majestic Energy Corp. v. Majestic Energy Corp. & J.C. Templeton
  835 F.2d 87· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the pledge instrument did not extend to new common stock issued in satisfaction of an unrelated unsecured claim, as it only covered the original preferred stock.
• United States v. Revie
  834 F.2d 1198· 5th Cir.· 1987-12-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court was not clearly erroneous in finding the appellant guilty of criminal contempt for willfully disobeying a show cause order, and that the bankruptcy court retained jurisdiction to conduct proceedings to enforce its turnover order pending appe
• Rosen-Novak Auto Co. v. Honz
  783 F.2d 739· 8th Cir.· 1986-02-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in entering judgment on an incomplete record without allowing the defendant to present its evidence.
• Control Ctr., L.L.C. v. Lauer
  288 B.R. 269· M.D. Fla.· 2002-12-11 ·cited 3×
  The court granted the motion to withdraw reference and transfer the case to the district court because several claims were non-core and the defendant had a right to a jury trial on those claims.
• In re A.H. Robins Co. v. Mabey
  880 F.2d 769· 4th Cir.· 1989-06-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's actions, while extensive, did not constitute impermissible interference with the day-to-day operations of the Daikon Shield Claimants' Trust, and the Claimants' Committee had standing to raise these issues.
• In re Schultz Mfg. Fabricating Co.
  956 F.2d 686· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-10 ·cited 1×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of appeals, finding the appellants lacked standing or that their appeals were untimely.
• White v. Richert
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-02-12
  The court held that a motion to withdraw a bankruptcy reference is premature if based solely on a potential jury trial right before the case is ready for trial.
• Colony Beach & Tennis Club, Ltd. v. Colony Beach & Tennis Club Ass'n
  456 B.R. 545· M.D. Fla.· 2011-07-27
  The bankruptcy court erred in classifying the Partnership's state law claims as 'core' proceedings and in its interpretation of the governing documents regarding responsibility for common element repairs.
• Horwitz v. Alloy Auto. Co.
  992 F.2d 100· 7th Cir.· 1993-04-21
  The court held that a prior dismissal for want of prosecution, even if potentially erroneous, has preclusive effect and bars subsequent litigation, absent established exceptions or timely appeal.
• In re ST. Clare's Hosp. & Health Ctr. v. Ins. Co. OF N. Am.
  934 F.2d 15· 2d Cir.· 1991-05-17
  The court held that the hospital provided timely notice of the malpractice claim under the insurance policy, and therefore the insurer has a duty to defend and indemnify.
• Gould v. Smith (In Re Holywell Corp.)
  118 B.R. 876· S.D. Fla.· 1990-08-30
  The district court held that the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding because the record did not establish that the non-debtor subsidiaries' assets were part of the bankrupts' estate.