Legal Opinion
In Re Marshall
United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California
Decided October 9, 2003No. LA 02-30769-SBPublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SECOND AMENDED OPINION ON PLAN CONFIRMATION AND MOTION TO DISMISS (CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES)
SAMUEL L. BUFFORD, Bankruptcy Judge.
I. Introduction
In this case Pierce Marshall, as trustee for three family trusts (collectively referred to as “Pierce”) opposes confirmation of the chapter 11 1 plan proposed by the debtors, who are his brother J. Howard Marshall, III (“Howard”) and Howard’s wife llene O. Marshall. Pierce also moves to dismiss the case. Pierce supports both of these positions with the argument that this case falls outside the bankruptcy jurisdiction of the federal courts under the…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Granfinanciera, S.A. v. NordbergSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Regional Rail Reorganization Act CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Lawrence v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Elaine Marshall v. J. Marshall, IiiCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- In Re: Integrated Telecom Express, Inc. A/K/A Integrated Technology Express, Inc. A/K/A Delaware Integrated Telecom Express, Inc., Debtor Nmsbpcsldhb, L.P. v. Integrated Telecom Express, Inc. And the Official Committee of Equity HoldersCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2004
- Lorenzo Esteva v. UBS Financial Services Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2023
- Marshall v. Marshall (In Re Marshall)District Court, C.D. California · 2009
- NMSBPCSLDHB, L.P. v. Integrated Telecom Express, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2004
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.