Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Morgan v. Goldman (In Re Morgan)

United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit

Decided September 24, 2007No. 07-6010, 07-6016EAPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

MAHONEY, Bankruptcy Judge,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur in the decision of the majority to reverse the order in the Dedmon case, but not only for the reasons stated by the majority. I will explain further in my dissent.

I dissent from the reasoning and conclusion of the majority with regard to the Morgan order.

The standard of review with regard to findings of fact is clear error. I cannot say that the Morgan judge’s findings that Goldman’s testimony at the May hearing and November hearings was inconsistent and that she had a conflict of interest with the unsecured…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. In Re LundborgUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut · 1990
  2. Richman v. StraleyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1995
  3. Alexander v. Jensen-Carter (In Re Alexander)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit · 2003
  4. Dye v. Brown (In Re AFI Holding, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
  5. Miller v. Miller (In Re Miller)Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit · 2003

2 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