Royals v. Smith Jones, Inc. (In Re Smith Jones, Inc.)
United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BILL H. BRISTER, Bankruptcy Judge.
The subject of this memorandum is that of improper venue of an adversary proceeding under the Code when that defense was neither timely nor meaningfully presented.
Smith Jones, Inc. (“Debtor”) filed petition for order for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11, United States Code, in the Minneapolis Division of the District of Minnesota on March 24, 1981. Two days later, on March 26, 1981, before he became aware that the Chapter 11 case had been filed, Leon Royals (“Royals”), a former employee of debtor in its Dallas, Texas, operations, filed…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Prince Heyward v. Public Housing AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1956
- Rubens v. EllisCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1953
- Littleton National Bank v. Coleman American Companies, Inc. (In Re Coleman American Companies, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado · 1980
- Textron, Inc. v. Maloney-Crawford Tank & Manufacturing Co.District Court, S.D. Texas · 1966
3Cited by4 opinions
- Nixon MacHinery Co. v. Roy Energy, Inc. (In Re Nixon MacHinery Co.)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1983
- Hermine Fujuro Misch, on Behalf of the Estate of Kansiano Misch, as Well as on Behalf of His Dependents and Family v. Zee Enterprises, Inc. Tuna Clippers, Inc. Casamar Guam, Inc. Laura Ann Partnership Adriatic Sea Partnership Lawrence Zuanich Does I Through V, Individuals and Partners Roe Corporations I Through V, Hermine Fujuro Misch, on Behalf of the Estate of Kansiano Misch, as Well as on Behalf of His Dependents and Family v. Zee Enterprises, Inc., and Laura Ann Partnership Lawrence ZuanichCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- In Re FishmanUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1997
- Misch ex rel. Estate of Misch v. Zee Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989