Bankruptcy Amendments And Federal Judgeship Act Of 1984

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

• In re Caryl W. Riggsby v. Caryl W. Riggsby
  745 F.2d 1153· 7th Cir.· 1984-10-15 ·cited 126×
  An order by a district judge reversing a bankruptcy judge's dismissal of a complaint objecting to discharge and remanding for further proceedings is not a final order for purposes of appeal to the court of appeals.
• In re Amatex Corp.
  755 F.2d 1034· 3d Cir.· 1985-02-22 ·cited 96×
  Future asbestos claimants are entitled to representation in a manufacturer's bankruptcy reorganization to protect their interests, even if their symptoms have not yet manifested.
• 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.
• In re Am. Colonial Broad. Corp.
  758 F.2d 794· 1st Cir.· 1985-04-03 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court's order authorizing a special master to negotiate a sale was not a final, appealable order, and therefore the district court's dismissal of the appeal was also not appealable.
• In re Salem Mortg. Co. v. Nodine
  783 F.2d 626· 6th Cir.· 1986-02-11 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding because it was sufficiently related to the bankruptcy estate.
• 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
• In re Kelly v. Kelly
  841 F.2d 908· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-02 ·cited 40×
  The court held that debts secured by real property can be considered consumer debts and that a debtor's ability to repay debts is the primary factor in determining 'substantial abuse' under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b).
• In re Benny v. England
  791 F.2d 712· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-09 ·cited 34×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear appeals challenging the constitutionality of sections of the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, and affirmed the denial of intervention to bankruptcy judges.
• In re Manoa Fin. Co., Inc. v. George W.H. GOO
  781 F.2d 1370· 9th Cir.· 1986-02-04 ·cited 34×
  The court held that appeals from a district judge sitting as a bankruptcy court are treated as appeals from a final decision of a district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and that the judge's alleged bias was not grounds for disqualification.
• In re TCL Invs. v. Brookside Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  775 F.2d 1516· 11th Cir.· 1985-11-14 ·cited 34×
  The collateral order doctrine should apply to allow immediate appeal of the district court's interlocutory order reversing a bankruptcy court's sale order, because the issue is separable, important, and requires prompt review.
• In re Hipp, Inc. v. Oles
  895 F.2d 1503· 5th Cir.· 1990-03-16 ·cited 31×
  A criminal contempt prosecution initiated by a party-in-interest, rather than a disinterested prosecutor, violates Supreme Court precedent and requires reversal. Furthermore, bankruptcy courts lack the power to hear and determine criminal contempts.
• In re Tarnow
  749 F.2d 464· 7th Cir.· 1984-12-03 ·cited 31×
  A bankruptcy court's disallowance of a secured creditor's claim solely due to late filing does not automatically extinguish the creditor's lien.
• In re Lemco Gypsum, Inc. v. Kemira, Inc.
  910 F.2d 784· 11th Cir.· 1990-09-06 ·cited 30×
  The bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a motion for damages and civil contempt against parties who purchased property from the bankruptcy estate but failed to remove it within the specified time, as the dispute was too tenuous to affect the bankruptcy estate after
• In re White Motor Credit v. White Motor Corp.
  761 F.2d 270· 6th Cir.· 1985-04-29 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984 permits district courts to abstain from hearing personal injury tort claims and allow them to be liquidated in the courts where they are pending.
• In re Reid v. Reid
  757 F.2d 230· 10th Cir.· 1985-03-12 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court did not err in finding that the paintings were not held primarily for personal, family, or household use, and thus were not exempt from attachment for debts.
• In re Moens v. Moens
  800 F.2d 173· 7th Cir.· 1986-09-04 ·cited 26×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the Article III constitutional challenge and that the Appointments Clause challenge was moot due to the bankruptcy judge's resignation.
• In re Exclusive Indus. Corp. v. First Nat'l Bank OF Lafayette
  751 F.2d 806· 5th Cir.· 1985-02-01 ·cited 26×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the direct appeal due to recent statutory amendments and ordered the case transferred to the proper forum.
• In re Carter v. Danning
  759 F.2d 763· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the direct appeal because the statutory authorization for such appeals was repealed by the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984 before the notice of appeal was filed.
• In re United Mo. Bank OF Kan. City, N.A.
  901 F.2d 1449· 8th Cir.· 1990-04-23 ·cited 23×
  A bankruptcy judge lacks the statutory authority to conduct jury trials in a core bankruptcy proceeding alleging preferential transfers.
• Teton Exploration Drilling, Inc. v. Bokum Res. Corp. & Long Island Lighting Co.
  818 F.2d 1521· 10th Cir.· 1987-05-18 ·cited 22×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the district court's confirmation of the bankruptcy court's judgment, and that the bankruptcy court's findings of fact and contract interpretation were not clearly erroneous.
• In re Meyertech Corp. v. Meyertech Corp
  831 F.2d 410· 3d Cir.· 1987-10-14 ·cited 21×
  The court held that a creditor's state law breach of warranty claim against a bankrupt estate is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, and that the total cost theory of damages was inappropriate given the available
• 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 Koerner v. Colonial Bank
  800 F.2d 1358· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-24 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court's order rejecting the constitutional challenge to the 1984 Act was not a final order and thus not immediately appealable, but the subsequent appeal from the dismissal of the bankruptcy appeal was properly before the court. The court affirmed
• In re Ryther v. Lumber Prods., Inc.
  799 F.2d 1412· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-19 ·cited 19×
  The court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the appellant failed to argue that the bankruptcy court's order was final before the district court.
• Hall v. Katheryn Vance
  887 F.2d 1041· 10th Cir.· 1989-10-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court properly dismissed the Chapter 11 petition for failure to file an acceptable plan and adequate disclosure statement, but erred in dismissing it with prejudice.
• In re Timbers OF Inwood Forest Assocs., Ltd. v. Timbers OF Inwood Forest Assocs., Ltd.
  808 F.2d 363· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court's mandatory construction of § 361 requiring periodic payments for lost opportunity cost may be error, and that each case must be adjudicated on its own facts.
• 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 Busick
  831 F.2d 745· 7th Cir.· 1987-10-05 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the 1984 amendments to 11 U.S.C. § 303 apply to pending cases and that a bona fide dispute exists if there is an objective basis for a factual or legal dispute regarding the debt's validity.
• In re Parklane/Atlanta Joint Venture v. Parklane/Atlanta Venture
  927 F.2d 532· 11th Cir.· 1991-03-19 ·cited 16×
  The district court's inherent jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction is unquestioned and cannot be limited by a debate over 'cause' for withdrawal.
• In re Pac. FAR E. Lines, Inc. v. Wyle
  889 F.2d 242· 9th Cir.· 1989-11-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to order a refund of RSEF contributions paid under the 1898 Act, and that the 1984 RSEF Act's $200,000 cap applied retroactively to fees already paid in pending cases.
• In re Hudson Shipbuilders, Inc. v. Hudson Shipbuilders, Inc.
  794 F.2d 1051· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to determine reasonable attorneys' fees under 11 U.S.C. § 506(b) and that federal law, not state law, governs the determination of such fees. The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's award of $30,000 in attorneys' fees.
• In re Benny v. England
  812 F.2d 1133· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-12 ·cited 15×
  Congressional extensions of incumbent bankruptcy judges' terms violate the Appointments Clause, but a judge's holdover status, unaffected by unconstitutional extensions, allows them to continue exercising jurisdiction.
• 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.
• In re Charles Ellsworth Krohn aka Charles E. Krohn
  886 F.2d 123· 6th Cir.· 1989-09-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition can be dismissed for substantial abuse if the debtor is dishonest or not needy, even if they are ineligible for Chapter 13 relief.
• In re Bertoli v. D'Avella
  812 F.2d 136· 3d Cir.· 1987-02-26 ·cited 11×
  A motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) can suffice as a notice of appeal, and district courts may hear interlocutory appeals from bankruptcy courts without certification by the bankruptcy judge.
• In re Graham v. Graham
  747 F.2d 1383· 11th Cir.· 1984-12-04 ·cited 11×
  The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to hear the fraudulent conveyance action during the stay period following Northern Pipeline, and the defendants were not entitled to a jury trial.
• In re Weaver Adams v. Sidney Schafer & Assocs., Inc.
  809 F.2d 1187· 5th Cir.· 1987-02-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while a district court's order of remand is generally unreviewable, the district court's dismissal of an appeal from a bankruptcy court's order is reviewable. The bankruptcy court's order reinstating the case was superfluous.
• Roy v. Creasy
  763 F.2d 656· 4th Cir.· 1985-06-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a bankruptcy removal petition is timely if any defendant meets the thirty-day removal requirement, and that district courts have jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters, including pension fund disputes, under the 1984 Act.
• In re Walton
  866 F.2d 981· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court and district court erred in finding substantial abuse of Chapter 7 relief based on a debtor's ability to pay debts from future income, as this was contrary to congressional intent.
• In re Harbour v. Perkinson
  840 F.2d 1165· 4th Cir.· 1988-03-02 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge held that the Perkinsons are entitled to a trial by jury because the trustee's claims, both under federal law for preferences and fraudulent transfers and under state law for voluntary conveyances, are historically legal actions seeking money judgments.
• In re Rini v. Clerk, United States Bankr. Court
  782 F.2d 603· 6th Cir.· 1986-01-30 ·cited 8×
  The Court held that the District Court acted outside its jurisdiction in ordering the reinstatement of deputy bankruptcy clerks, as Congress had divested the District Court of supervisory authority over such personnel matters.
• In re Chateaugay Corp. v. LTV Steel Co., Inc.
  920 F.2d 183· 2d Cir.· 1990-12-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plain language of Bankruptcy Code § 362(h) limits its application to natural persons ('individuals') and does not permit recovery of damages by corporate debtors.
• Minerex Erdoel, Inc. v. Sina, Inc.
  838 F.2d 781· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-03 ·cited 6×
  A district court may not refer an appeal from a bankruptcy court decision to a United States magistrate, as such appeals are exclusively governed by 28 U.S.C. § 158.
• In re Men's Sportswear, Inc. v. Sasson Jeans, Inc.
  834 F.2d 1134· 2d Cir.· 1987-11-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Sasson's repeated obstructionist conduct justified the entry of a default judgment and that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction, but remanded for modification of the damage award concerning unspent advertising funds.
• In re Duque
  48 B.R. 965· S.D. Fla.· 1984-11-20 ·cited 5×
  A Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession cannot use estate funds to pay for criminal counsel defending against federal charges arising from pre-bankruptcy activities.
• In re Parque Forestal, Inc.
  949 F.2d 504· 1st Cir.· 1991-11-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly upheld the bankruptcy court's order under 11 U.S.C. § 506(c), allowing recovery from a secured creditor for necessary costs of preserving collateral that directly benefited the creditor.
• Torcise v. Cmty. Bank of Homestead
  131 B.R. 503· S.D. Fla.· 1991-08-15 ·cited 4×
  The bankruptcy court cannot conduct a jury trial on the preference and fraudulent conveyance claims because they are legal in nature and the Defendant is entitled to a jury trial, but the jury demand for the equitable subordination claim is stricken.
• 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).
• 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 Perroton v. Nancy L.G. Gray
  958 F.2d 889· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-09 ·cited 3×
  A bankruptcy court is not a "court of the United States" as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 451, and therefore lacks the authority to waive filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).