Legal Opinion · Concurrence

America's Servicing Co. v. Schwartz-Tallard (In Re Schwartz-Tallard)

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided October 14, 2015No. 12-60052Published

1Concurrence

BE A, Circuit Judge, joined by O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment:

I concur in the majority’s conclusion that 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) has an unambiguous meaning which permits Schwartz-Tal-lard to recover the attorney’s fees she incurred in defending against ASC’s appeal. Maj. Op. at 1097-99. In my view, however, this should be the beginning and end of our analysis. I am troubled that the majority proceeds to speculate about “Congress’ plan” in enacting the automatic-stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code in reliance on King v. Burwell, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2480, 192 L.Ed.2d 483…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. King v. BurwellSupreme Court of the United States · 2015
  3. Bank of Columbia v. OkelySupreme Court of the United States · 1819
  4. City of Arlington v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'nSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  5. Kloeckner v. SolisSupreme Court of the United States · 2012

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API