Legal Opinion
Malloy v. Chicago Rapid Transit Co.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided November 10, 1937No. 6240PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
EVANS, Circuit Judge.
' The precise question before us may be stated thus- — -Was the employment of Schuyler, Weinfeld & Hennessy by Commonwealth Edison (a large creditor and the owner of over half of debtor’s common stock) such as to require a court to veto Trustee Sprague’s request to employ them as his counsel?
In determining this question we agree with the District Court that employment of counsel by trustee, in view of General Order 44, as amended in 1933, 11 U.S.C.A. following section 53, is a responsibility of the trustee in the first instance. The court may exercise merely a veto power.
G…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Geddes v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Weil v. NearySupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Henderson v. Binkley Coal Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1935
- In re G. W. Giannini, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1937
3Cited by11 opinions
- In Re RobertsUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah · 1985
- In Re Philadelphia Athletic Club, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1982
- In Re Heatron, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Missouri · 1980
- In Re Michigan General Corp.United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · 1987
- In Re Sambo's Restaurants, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California · 1982
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.