Legal Opinion · Concurrence
In Re Brooks-Hamilton
United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit
Decided January 21, 2009No. BAP No. NC-08-1233-DJuMk. Bankruptcy No. 03-44829Published
1Concurrence
MARKELL, Bankruptcy Judge,
concurring.
I reluctantly concur. My reluctance stems not from a disagreement with the majority over its analysis of the case; I cannot fault that. It does not derive from concerns over the scope or import of the majority’s words; those also are beyond any serious objection.
Instead, my reluctance comes from discomfort with our long-established rule that, unless changed by a higher court or Congress, we must follow our own precedent, regardless of how flawed it may be. Concannon v. Imperial Cap. Bank (In re Concannon), 338 B.R. 90, 95 (9th Cir. BAP 2006); Salomon N.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Patricia Hart v. Larry G. Massanari, Acting Commissioner of Social Security AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Ex Parte BurrSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington v. John Jarrette SandlinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- Peugeot v. United States Trustee (In Re Crayton)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.