Legal Opinion
Stuhley v. Dunoco Development Corp. (In Re Dunoco Corp.)
United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California
Decided December 23, 1985No. Bankruptcy No. SA 84-04960 RP, Adv. No. SA 85-0361 RPPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING JURY TRIAL
RALPH G. PAGTER, Bankruptcy Judge.
In the instant adversary proceeding, plaintiff trustee filed the Complaint on May 10, 1985 and the Amended Complaint on July 19, 1985. Each complaint contained a demand for a jury trial. Since the jury trial demand was contemporaneous with the filing of each complaint, the demand was timely under Bankruptcy Rule 9015(b)(1). The demand does not specify particular issues. Therefore, it is deemed to be a demand for a jury trial on all issues so triable. Bankruptcy Rule 9015(b)(2).
The availability of jury trials in bankruptcy court is…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Curtis v. LoetherSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Ross v. BernhardSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Slack v. HavensCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
- Hassett v. Weissman (In Re O.P.M. Leasing Services, Inc.)District Court, S.D. New York · 1985
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Moratzka v. Wencl (In Re Wencl)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · 1987
- Taubman Western Associates, No. 2 v. Beugen (In Re Beugen)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · 1988
- Carter v. Schott (In Re Carter Paper Co.)United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Louisiana · 1998
- Martino v. Weisman (In Re Elegant Equine, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · 1993
- Official Creditors' Committee of Honeycomb, Inc. v. Fidelity Bank, N.A. (In Re Honeycomb, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 1987
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.