Legal Opinion
In re Barry Yao Co.
District Court, S.D. California
Decided August 11, 1959No. 62410PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MATHES, District Judge.
Respondents move for a rehearing of the petition for review, which resulted in an order denying Messrs. Quittner and Zimmerman any compensation for their services as special counsel for the receiver on the ground that their failure to set forth fully and accurately in their petition for fees “the value and extent of the services rendered,” as required by § 62, sub. d of the Bankruptcy Act, amounted to a material misrepresentation of the facts. 11 U.S.C.A. § 102, sub. d; see In re Barry Yao Co., D.C.S.D.Cal.1959, 172 F.Supp. 375.
In support of this motion it is first…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Pepper v. LittonSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Sprague v. Ticonic National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Wayne United Gas Co. v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Weil v. NearySupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Baker v. HumphreySupreme Court of the United States · 1880
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- In The Matter Of Evangeline Refining CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1989
- In the Matter of Arlan's Dept. Stores, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1978
- Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. Charles N. Wooten, Ltd. (In re Evangeline Refining Co.)Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1989
- Kendall v. Turner (In Re Turner)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · 2006
- In the Matter of Barry Yao Company, a Copartnership, and Barry Yao, an Individual, Bankrupts. Francis F. Quittner v. Bertram S. HarrisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1961