Case Summaries
Bankruptcy Law
Commercial Law
Contracts
Bankruptcy Law
[08/07]
Lockerby v. Sierra
In the bankruptcy context, an intentional breach of contract cannot give rise to nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(6) unless it is accompanied by conduct that constitutes a tort under state law.
[08/07]
In re: Addison
In a bankruptcy case, rulings against debtor and denial of discharge are affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the bankruptcy court clearly erred in finding that debtor converted nonexempt property into his homestead with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor; 2) it erred similarly in finding debtor transferred nonexempt funds into a Roth IRA with such intent; 3) the resultant denial of discharge required reversal; and 4) two 26 U.S.C. section 529 tuition savings accounts opened for the benefit of his children were nonexempt property of his bankruptcy estate.
[08/07]
Nuvell Credit Co., LLC v. Dean
Court order confirming Chapter 13 Plan is vacated and remanded where the order was at odds with the result reached in In re Jones, 530 F.3d 1284 (10th Cir. 2008) and nearly all other courts because it does not provide for payment of interest on the creditor/plaintiff's 910-claim.
[08/06]
In Re: Graupner
In a bankruptcy case raising the issue of whether the anti-bifurcation provision in the hanging paragraph of Title 11 protects against "cramdown" of the negative equity in a trade-in vehicle, judgment finding creditor to have a purchase money security interest in the vehicle, precluding bifurcation and cramdown, is affirmed where a contrary interpretation was not supported by the text of the hanging paragraph or its legislative history.
[08/04]
Kane v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co.
In a personal injury suit, summary judgment for defendants finding plaintiffs were judicially estopped based on their failure to include the personal injury action in their Chapter 7 bankruptcy schedules, as well as a denial of trustee's motion to be substituted in that action as moot, are reversed and the case remanded where: 1) the personal injury claim became an asset of the bankruptcy estate upon filing of the Chapter 7 petition; 2) the trustee was the real party in interest and never abandoned his interest; 3) plaintiffs only stand to benefit in the event there is a surplus after all the debts of the estate are paid; and 4) a prior circuit court case did not control the outcome of this case, and the district court abused its discretion in concluding as a matter of law that it did. (Revised opinion)
[08/04]
Waldron v. Brown
In a matter where plaintiff-debtor's claims for legal relief arose after confirmation but before completion of his plan to pay creditors and where plaintiff was required to amend his schedule of assets to disclose proceeds of any settlement of those claims, judgment in favor of defendant-trustee is affirmed where: 1) the plain text of 11 U.S.C. section 1306(a) establishes that plaintiff's claims are property of the estate; and 2) the bankruptcy court has the discretion to require an amendment of the debtors' schedule of assets under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1009.
[08/01]
In the Matter of: Coleman
"[U]ndue hardship" determinations, whereby bankruptcy courts decide whether student loans qualify for discharge, can be ripe in a Chapter 13 case substantially in advance of plan completion.
[08/01]
Jaffe v. Pacelli
In a matter arising out of a real estate transaction, judgment against debtor defendant including award of attorney's fees is affirmed in most respects but reversed in part where the court erred in denying plaintiff's request for attorney's fees and costs related to litigating bankruptcy proceedings.
[07/31]
In re: Mullarkey
In a suit alleging fraud in a bankruptcy proceeding by co-owners of debtor's property, dismissal of claims is reversed where the bankruptcy court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the complaint, but erred in dismissing plaintiff-debtor's claims on various theories of preclusion.
[07/29]
In re: Carco Elec.
In a dispute between competing bidders in the acquisition of debtor's production facilities during bankruptcy proceedings, an appeal from a protective order limiting the disclosure of the bidders' respective trade secrets during discovery is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction where the order was neither final nor appealable under the limited scope of the collateral order doctrine.
More...
Commercial Law
[08/07]
Peck v. Cingular Wireless, LLC
In a class action lawsuit brought by a former employee against Cingular claiming, inter alia, it violated state law by passing a business and occupation tax (B&O tax) on to consumers in the form of a line item charge, dismissal of the suit is vacated where, contrary to the ruling below, there was no federal preemption of plaintiff's state law claims.
[08/07]
Flamingo Express, Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin.
In a complaint filed with the FAA by the operator of an air service alleging that a city had violated its obligations under federal law by, among other things, failing to approve an application and requiring that petitioner obtain unreasonably high liability insurance coverage, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the city did not violate its federal obligations.
[08/06]
Lebanon Farms Disposal, Inc. v. County of Lebanon
In a suit challenging county waste-management ordinances as unconstitutional, partial summary judgment for plaintiff, declaration that the ordinances violated the dormant Commerce Clause, and grant of a permanent injunction against enforcement of the ordinances are vacated and remanded where: 1) the intervening opinion in United Haulers Ass'n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mgmt. Auth., 127 S. Ct. 1786 (2007), changed the applicable law by holding that flow control ordinances that benefit a clearly public facility and which treat in-state private business interests exactly the same as out-of-state ones, do not facially discriminate against interstate commerce; and 2) a remand was appropriate to allow the district court to conduct burden-benefit balancing for a determination of whether the ordinances were discriminatory in effect.
[08/06]
Lebanon Farms Disposal, Inc. v. County of Lebanon
In a suit challenging county waste-management ordinances as unconstitutional, partial summary judgment for plaintiff, declaration that the ordinances violated the dormant Commerce Clause, and grant of a permanent injunction against enforcement of the ordinances are vacated and remanded where: 1) the intervening opinion in United Haulers Ass'n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mgmt. Auth., 127 S. Ct. 1786 (2007), changed the applicable law by holding that flow control ordinances that benefit a clearly public facility and which treat in-state private business interests exactly the same as out-of-state ones, do not facially discriminate against interstate commerce; and 2) a remand was appropriate to allow the district court to conduct burden-benefit balancing for a determination of whether the ordinances were discriminatory in effect.
[08/06]
Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Staffing Concepts, Inc.
In a suit over workers' compensation insurance policies, an order striking a motion to compel arbitration is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction where the order was a delay incident to an orderly process, and not a final refusal of a request to stay judicial proceedings.
[08/05]
Citadel Group Ltd. v. Washington Reg'l. Med. Ctr.
In a suit to recover development costs for a planned construction project in Arkansas, dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction is reversed where defendant's contacts with plaintiff, a corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois, were sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over defendant in Illinois.
[08/05]
Citadel Group Ltd. v. Washington Reg'l. Med. Ctr.
In a suit to recover development costs for a planned construction project in Arkansas, dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction is reversed where defendant's contacts with plaintiff, a corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois, were sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over defendant in Illinois.
[08/05]
Israel v. Chabra
In a claim for a bonus promised to plaintiffs and personally guaranteed to them by defendant-corporation's CEO, a question is certified to the New York Court of Appeals as to whether New York General Obligations Law section 15-301(1) abrogates, in the case of a contract where the second of two irreconcilable provisions requires that any modifications to the agreement be made in writing, the common law rule that where two contractual provisions are irreconcilable, the one appearing first in the contract is to be given effect rather than the one appearing subsequent.
[08/04]
Gore Design Completions. Ltd. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
In a suit by an insured seeking a declaratory judgment that defendant-insurer had a duty to defend plaintiff against negligence claims, summary judgment for defendant is reversed and remanded where: 1) under the Texas "eight corners" rule, an insurance company determines its duty to defend an underlying liability lawsuit with reference to the terms of the policy and the pleadings of the third-party claimant; and 2) the language of the policy and the claim, liberally construed, triggered defendant's duty to defend plaintiff for work performed by plaintiff's subcontractor, and none of the policy's exclusions applied to relieve defendant of its duty.
[08/04]
CoxCom, Inc. v. Chaffee
In an action brought by cable television provider claiming defendants' sale of electronic decoding cable box violated the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 47 U.S.C. Section 553(a)(1) and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. Section 1201, summary judgment and permanent injunction in favor of plaintiff are affirmed over claims of error that: 1) plaintiff lacked standing to bring the lawsuit; 2) summary judgment was improvidently granted; 3) summary judgment notwithstanding, defendants were entitled to a jury trial on damages; and 3) permanent injunction was improperly granted.
More...
Contracts
[08/07]
Peck v. Cingular Wireless, LLC
In a class action lawsuit brought by a former employee against Cingular claiming, inter alia, it violated state law by passing a business and occupation tax (B&O tax) on to consumers in the form of a line item charge, dismissal of the suit is vacated where, contrary to the ruling below, there was no federal preemption of plaintiff's state law claims.
[08/07]
Lockerby v. Sierra
In the bankruptcy context, an intentional breach of contract cannot give rise to nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(6) unless it is accompanied by conduct that constitutes a tort under state law.
[08/07]
Great Plains Real Estate Dev., L.L.C. v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co.
In a contract dispute between a borrower and lender, summary judgment for lender is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly found that a prepayment premium provision in the parties' promissory note was enforceable under Iowa law and that the provision had not been waived or modified; and 2) there was no abuse of discretion in awarding defendants attorney's fees and costs.
[08/07]
Arthur L. Christoffersen Irrevocable Trust v. Yellow Book USA
In a trust's action against Yellow Book claiming a breach of contract and a violation of the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Act, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly concluded defendant did not breach a Consulting Agreement when it discontinued paying consulting fees after decedent died and was no longer available to provide those services; and 2) trust's claim under the Iowa Wage Payment Act (Act) failed as a matter of law because the trust was not asserting a claim for consulting fees against an employer.
[08/06]
Southwest Marine, Inc. v. US
Fees incurred by plaintiff-shipyard operator during its unsuccessful defense of a private party Clean Water Act lawsuit are not allowable costs under Subpart 31.2 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 48 C.F.R. sections 31.201-31.205.
[08/06]
Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Staffing Concepts, Inc.
In a suit over workers' compensation insurance policies, an order striking a motion to compel arbitration is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction where the order was a delay incident to an orderly process, and not a final refusal of a request to stay judicial proceedings.
[08/06]
Newkirk v. Vill. of Steger
In a discrimination and retaliation suit by employees of defendant police department, dismissal with prejudice based on a settlement agreement is affirmed over objections that not all plaintiffs had agreed to the settlement, where the written record, including the agreement itself and the transcript of the open-court affirmation of the settlement by plaintiffs, evidenced an objective meeting of the minds and validated the agreement.
[08/05]
Northrop Grumman Info. Tech., Inc. v. US
In a suit alleging breach of a warranty incorporated by reference into a contract under which plaintiff leased software to the government, summary judgment for the government is affirmed where the language used in a contract to incorporate extrinsic material by reference must explicitly, or at least precisely, identify the written material being incorporated and must clearly communicate that the purpose of the reference is to incorporate the referenced material into the contract.
[08/05]
Citadel Group Ltd. v. Washington Reg'l. Med. Ctr.
In a suit to recover development costs for a planned construction project in Arkansas, dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction is reversed where defendant's contacts with plaintiff, a corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois, were sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over defendant in Illinois.
[08/05]
Israel v. Chabra
In a claim for a bonus promised to plaintiffs and personally guaranteed to them by defendant-corporation's CEO, a question is certified to the New York Court of Appeals as to whether New York General Obligations Law section 15-301(1) abrogates, in the case of a contract where the second of two irreconcilable provisions requires that any modifications to the agreement be made in writing, the common law rule that where two contractual provisions are irreconcilable, the one appearing first in the contract is to be given effect rather than the one appearing subsequent.
More...
|
