Legal Opinion · Concurrence

American State Bank v. Marks (In Re MacNeil)

United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit

Decided August 11, 1989No. BAP No. OR-88-1877-MeJMo, Bankruptcy No. 386-02740-S7Published

1ConcurrenceMeyers, Judge

While I fully support the decision of the Panel, I write separately to enlarge on my *769approach to the issue presented. As with any question of statutory construction, we start with the plain language of the statute. See U.S. v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 1026, 1030, 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989).

Reference to the statutes involved reveals that Section 507(b) accords “priority over every other claim available under such subsection” referring to Section 507(a)(1) which gives first priority to administrative claims allowed under Section 503(b). On the other hand, Section 726(b)…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. Philbrook v. GlodgettSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  3. Nicholas v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  4. United States v. Cleveland (In Re Cleveland)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
  5. Taxel v. California State Board of Equalization (In Re Sluggo's Chicago Style, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 1988

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API