Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Find the right lawyer for your legal problem

Faster, Smarter and More Accurate

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit

Find Case Laws by Filters
Sort byYou can sort data by applying different sort criteria
Most Lastest
Most Earliest
The Last Three Years
In Re Hollingshead, 02-8045 (2002)

, The Tennessee Department of Agriculture (TDOA) appeals the decision of the bankruptcy court finding that TDOA's statutory lien on the Debtor's 2000 cotton crop does not have priority over the liens of two creditors that are also secured by the Debtor's 2000 cotton crop.

# 1
In Re First Cincinnati, Inc., 02-8018 (2002)

, This case is before the Panel on an appeal by Travelers Casualty Surety (Travelers) challenging an order of the bankruptcy court which vacated the automatic stay as to certain creditors and permitted them to proceed in their pending state court litigation against the Debtor.

# 2
In Re Marie C. Schoenlen, 02-8007 (2002)

I. ISSUES ON APPEAL, The issues on appeal are whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in granting a default judgment and whether the bankruptcy court properly concluded that service of process was proper pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7004.

# 3
In Re Leet, 01-8046 (2002)

In Isaacman, the court permitted the late filing of an adversary proceeding under Rule 4007(c) where the bankruptcy court itself had mistakenly sent out two different and conflicting notices *699 of a filing deadline. 1862, 141 L. Ed. 2d 32 (1998)). (Begue predates Carlisle).

# 4
In Re Francis, 01-8033 (2002)

, United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit., Appellant, Ed Schory Sons, Inc. (Schory) appeals the bankruptcy court's order confirming the chapter 13 plan filed by Frank Francis (Francis or Debtor). These were the first substantial payments on this nearly ten year old debt.

# 5
In Re Sweeney, 01-8030 (2002)

The Plaintiffs then moved for summary judgment, offering the Ohio default judgment for its collateral estoppel (issue preclusive) effect and arguing that the Ohio courts had already determined that the Debtor was guilty of such fraud as would bar the discharge of their debt., 665 N.E.2d at 263.

# 6
In Re Cowan, 01-8011 (2002)

Ohio Rev.Code ยง 5309.34. While Ohio law does provide Fifth Third with certain rights as against the Debtor based on the mortgage, those rights do not rise to the level of an interest in the property., We reach this conclusion by again turning to the Ohio Registration of Land Titles Act.

# 7

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer