Legal Opinion
Exchange Mutual Insurance v. Maness (In Re Maness)
United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee
Decided June 10, 1988No. Bankruptcy No. 1-87-02450, Adv. No. 1-88-0003PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
RALPH H. KELLEY, Chief Judge.
The court has entered a memorandum opinion and an order concluding that this adversary proceeding should be remanded to state court. The question is how to proceed in light of Rule 9027(e).
Rule 9027(e) makes the bankruptcy court’s decision on a motion to remand subject to de novo review by the district court. De novo review is not an appeal by a party to the proceeding. The bankruptcy court itself is required to send the decision to the district court for de novo review.
De novo review is a stricter standard for reviewing the bankruptcy court’s findings of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- United States v. W. R. Walters, United States of America v. Two Hundred Sixty-Two FirearmsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1981
- Gravitt v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic of America, Inc., a Corporation, Plaintiff- Cross-Appellee v. Instromedix, Inc., a Corporation, Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
- Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic of America, Inc., a Tennessee Corporation, Cross-Appellee v. Instromedix, Inc., an Oregon Corporation, Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
- Boone Coal and Timber Company v. William J.M. Polan (85-5400), the Bank of New York (85-5408)Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1986
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Cook v. GriffinDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 1989
- Mashburn v. Matassini (In re Matassini)United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · 1989