Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Mpls. Comm. Develop. v. Sharon N. Gunberg, 95-3377 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 95-3377 Visitors: 8
Filed: Aug. 15, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: _ No. 95-3377 _ In re: Sharon N. Gunberg, * * Debtor. * _ * * Minneapolis Community * Appeal from the United States Development Agency, * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Appellee, * * [UNPUBLISHED] v. * * Sharon N. Gunberg, * * Appellant. * _ Submitted: June 14, 1996 Filed: August 15, 1996 _ Before BOWMAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and BEAM, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Sharon N. Gunberg sought relief under the Bankruptcy Laws. The Minneapolis Community Development Agency filed a complain
More
___________ No. 95-3377 ___________ In re: Sharon N. Gunberg, * * Debtor. * _______________________________ * * Minneapolis Community * Appeal from the United States Development Agency, * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Appellee, * * [UNPUBLISHED] v. * * Sharon N. Gunberg, * * Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: June 14, 1996 Filed: August 15, 1996 ___________ Before BOWMAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and BEAM, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Sharon N. Gunberg sought relief under the Bankruptcy Laws. The Minneapolis Community Development Agency filed a complaint objecting to Gunberg's discharge. In the ensuing adversary 1 proceeding, the Bankruptcy Court denied Gunberg's discharge. Gunberg appealed to the District Court,2 which affirmed the judgment of the Bankruptcy Court. Gunberg now appeals to this 1 The Honorable Nancy C. Dreher, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the District of Minnesota. 2 The Honorable Michael James Davis, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. Court, arguing that the Bankruptcy Court erred in several respects and that the decision of the District Court should be reversed. Having considered all of Gunberg's arguments, we conclude that the Bankruptcy Court committed no error of law, that the District Court's decision affirming the Bankruptcy Court is correct, and that an opinion by this Court would lack precedential value. Accordingly, the decision of the District Court is affirmed without further discussion. AFFIRMED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -2-
Source:  CourtListener

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