-
630 F.2d 996·
3d Cir.·
1980-09-19
·cited 24×
The court held that the district court's order denying disclosure was a final decision appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) does not automatically bar disclosure of documents merely because they were reviewed by a grand jury.
-
348 F.2d 869·
9th Cir.·
1965-06-28
·cited 24×
A bankruptcy court cannot exercise summary jurisdiction to administer assets of third parties, even if they are found to be alter egos of the bankrupt, unless those assets are in the actual or constructive possession of the bankruptcy court; a tortious conversion claim requires a
-
227 F.2d 149·
4th Cir.·
1955-11-07
·cited 24×
The appeal is dismissed because the order suppressing evidence and dismissing the criminal case was not timely appealed within the 30-day period required for criminal proceedings.
-
492 F.2d 971·
10th Cir.·
1974-01-16
·cited 20×
The court held that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over the leaseholds but not over the proceeds of production held by a third-party purchaser. The court reversed the turnover and stay orders concerning the proceeds.
-
594 F.2d 1275·
9th Cir.·
1979-04-09
·cited 18×
A state utility commission rule conditioning continued service on payment of pre-bankruptcy debt is invalid under the Supremacy Clause as it contravenes the purpose and operation of the Bankruptcy Act.
-
264 F.2d 720·
5th Cir.·
1959-03-12
·cited 18×
The court held that the record did not support summary jurisdiction to treat the respondent corporation as the alter ego of the bankrupt.
-
643 F.2d 1356·
9th Cir.·
1981-05-01
·cited 16×
The court held that the bankruptcy court had summary jurisdiction to order the turnover of funds garnished by the state, as the state was merely a custodian and not the real party in interest, and the garnishment occurred during the automatic stay.
-
426 F.2d 160·
5th Cir.·
1970-04-20
·cited 16×
-
680 So. 2d 573·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1996-09-04
·cited 14×
This case addresses the appellate jurisdiction to review a trial court's non-final order denying a motion to enforce a settlement agreement in a personal injury lawsuit. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that it lacks jurisdiction to review non-final orders constr
-
211 F.2d 419·
5th Cir.·
1954-04-09
·cited 14×
The bankruptcy court lacked summary jurisdiction in rem over the lessor's reversionary interest in the leased property, as it was not in the bankrupt's possession and required a plenary proceeding.
-
139 F.2d 412·
3d Cir.·
1943-12-06
·cited 12×
A party waives their right to object to a bankruptcy referee's summary jurisdiction if they do not raise the objection promptly, which is considered equivalent to consent. However, if the claim involves disputed facts and reasonable room for controversy, a plenary proceeding is r
-
417 F.2d 370·
9th Cir.·
1969-10-01
·cited 10×
The dissenting judge argues that the majority erred in not allowing the defense of unclean hands in an equitable proceeding, potentially allowing vexatious lawsuits to proceed without equitable scrutiny.
-
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.
-
556 F.2d 772·
5th Cir.·
1977-07-29
·cited 8×
The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to hear the Truth-in-Lending counterclaim, and the conditional sales contract violated the Act's disclosure requirements by failing to clearly set forth the security interest in future indebtedness.
-
422 F.2d 576·
7th Cir.·
1970-02-12
·cited 8×
The court held that the district court correctly determined it lacked summary jurisdiction because Aero-Dyne and the United States advanced real and substantial claims to the property, which required adjudication in a plenary proceeding.
-
411 F.2d 674·
3d Cir.·
1969-05-21
·cited 8×
The court held that the District Court correctly denied the motion to compel the turnover of the promissory note because the third-party action had been terminated by a stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1).
-
287 F.2d 623·
5th Cir.·
1961-02-09
·cited 8×
-
626 F.2d 492·
5th Cir.·
1980-09-26
·cited 6×
The court held that a creditor's timely objection to summary jurisdiction in bankruptcy vitiates such jurisdiction, entitling the creditor to a plenary proceeding for Truth-in-Lending Act claims.
-
836 F.2d 808·
3d Cir.·
1988-02-01
·cited 4×
A Pennsylvania sheriff's sale in mortgage foreclosure, where the United States is joined as a party, qualifies as a "judicial sale" under 28 U.S.C. § 2410(c), thus extinguishing federal tax liens. Furthermore, under Pennsylvania law, a sheriff's transmittal of a deed for recordin
-
479 F.2d 67·
5th Cir.·
1973-06-01
·cited 4×
The court held that the bankruptcy court properly exercised summary jurisdiction over the store because the bankrupt remained in actual possession of the property at the time the bankruptcy petition was filed.
-
668 F.2d 905·
6th Cir.·
1982-01-18
·cited 3×
The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted because genuine issues of material fact remained regarding pipe defects, installation, and quantity specifications, and that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction due to substantial adverse claims.
-
479 F.2d 45·
9th Cir.·
1973-04-27
·cited 2×
The court held that the bankruptcy court lacked summary jurisdiction over property held by a third party asserting a bona fide claim, absent consent to such proceedings. The property cannot be treated as part of the bankrupt estate until resolved in a plenary proceeding.
-
419 F.2d 60·
3d Cir.·
1969-12-12
·cited 2×
The court held that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy claims, precluding state court actions on those claims.
-
339 F.2d 593·
6th Cir.·
1964-12-31
·cited 2×
A summary turnover order is improper when the trustee seeks to recover damages for a wrongful act that prevents bringing converted property into the bankrupt estate, as it requires possession of specific property, not a money judgment for dissipation.
-
130 F.2d 1001·
9th Cir.·
1942-10-21
·cited 2×
The court held that the bankruptcy court's order restraining state court proceedings to preserve the status quo pending a determination of jurisdiction was not an abuse of discretion.
-
384 F.2d 363·
5th Cir.·
1967-10-18
·cited 1×
The court held that a bankruptcy referee lacks summary jurisdiction to compel individual family members to file bankruptcy schedules when they assert substantial, bona fide title to property and the bankrupt corporation never possessed it.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-04-13
The court granted the motion to suspend deadlines, finding that discovery and litigation procedures are unnecessary pending a ruling on the dispositive motion for judgment on the pleadings.
-
447 F.2d 497·
10th Cir.·
1971-09-08
The bankruptcy court did not have summary jurisdiction to order the return of excise taxes paid by the bankrupt, as the payment did not constitute a fraudulent transfer under the Bankruptcy Act.
-
192 F.2d 427·
5th Cir.·
1951-11-20
The court held that the referee erred in limiting recovery to the depreciated value of old cans, as the agreement contemplated credit for usable returned cans at their billed value, discounted for wear and tear.