Legal Opinion · Concurrence
Deitz v. Ford (In Re Deitz)
United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit
Decided April 23, 2012No. BAP No. EC-11-1427-PaDMk. Bankruptcy No. 08-13589. Adversary No. 08-01217Published
1Concurrence
MARKELL, Bankruptcy Judge,
concurring.
I join in the opinion. I fully agree that Kennedy and Sasson control this case’s outcome. I write this concurrence, however, to note how Stern v. Marshall, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2594, 180 L.Ed.2d 475 (2011), may have reshaped the jurisdictional landscape in nondischargeability actions.
Both Kennedy and Sasson were written well before Stem. When viewed in light of Stem, this case highlights some potential jurisdictional flaws in Kennedy and Sas-son, as well as some of the challenges Stem presents when allocating decision making authority between district…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Stern v. MarshallSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Crowell v. BensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- In Re Pacor, Inc. v. John Higgins, Jr. And Louise HigginsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1984
- Katchen v. LandySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Den Ex Dem. Murray v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1856
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.