Bankruptcy Amendments And Federal Judgeship Act Of 1984

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

• In re Garcia v. United States
  955 F.2d 16· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-02 ·cited 2×
  Pre-petition interest on tax debts is subject to the same priority as the underlying tax debt under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code.
• United States v. Inslaw, Inc.
  932 F.2d 1467· D.C. Cir.· 1991-05-07 ·cited 2×
  The Court held that the automatic stay under § 362(a) does not apply to a party in possession of property under a claim of right at the time of bankruptcy filing, even if that possession may ultimately prove to violate the bankrupt's rights.
• In re Cassidy Land & Cattle Co., Inc. v. McCARTY Ranch Tr.
  836 F.2d 1130· 8th Cir.· 1988-02-10 ·cited 2×
  A bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to foreclose a mortgage that constitutes the sole asset of the bankrupt estate and is held by the bankrupt, as this constitutes a 'core proceeding' under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E).
• Am. Universal Ins. Co. v. Pugh
  821 F.2d 1352· 9th Cir.· 1987-07-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that American was not entitled to a jury trial in the bankruptcy adversary proceeding because its claims were equitable in nature. The court also held that the Pughs were not entitled to attorney's fees under ORS 743.114.
• Matter of Sundale Assocs., Ltd.
  48 B.R. 288· S.D. Fla.· 1984-12-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court did not err in determining the creditor's claim amount and dismissing the Chapter 11 proceedings.
• Gertrude Baumgart v. Fairchild Aircraft Corp. & Swearingen Aviation Corp.
  981 F.2d 824· 5th Cir.· 1993-01-22 ·cited 1×
  The Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5), does not prohibit a district court from dismissing a bankruptcy-related wrongful death case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens when the claim arose in a foreign country.
• Tooke v. Sunshine Tr. Mortg. Tr. NO. 86-225
  149 B.R. 687· M.D. Fla.· 1992-06-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the appellants were likely to prevail on the merits of their appeal because the mandatory application of 11 U.S.C. § 109(g)(2) was not warranted by the facts, and therefore granted their motion for a stay pending appeal.
• In re McLAREN v. McLAREN
  990 F.2d 850· 6th Cir.· 1993-04-07
  The court held that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to determine the dischargeability of a debt in a core proceeding initiated by a creditor, and that the debt was nondischargeable as obtained by actual fraud.
• The Honorable Keith M. Lundin v. Mecham
  980 F.2d 1450· D.C. Cir.· 1992-12-01
  The court held that the Six Judges are entitled to attorney's fees incurred in the District Court litigation because they were prevailing parties and the government's position was not substantially justified, but they cannot recover fees for work done in related cases.
• Hillsborough Holdings Corp. v. Celotex Corp.
  123 B.R. 1018· M.D. Fla.· 1990-07-11
  The court held that veil piercing and fraudulent conveyance claims, even if filed pre-Chapter 11 and involving state law, are core bankruptcy proceedings when their resolution is essential to the administration and restructuring of the debtor's estate and debtor-creditor relation
• In re Mile HI Metal Sys., Inc. v. Mile HI Metal Sys., Inc.
  899 F.2d 887· 10th Cir.· 1990-03-20
  The court, in a concurring opinion, argues that the majority's interpretation of 'necessary' in Section 1113 is too lenient and fails to consider the legislative context and labor policies.