Legal Opinion

Boldt v. Crake (In Re Riverside-Linden Investment Co.)

United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit

Decided March 22, 1990No. BAP No. SC 88-1976-AsVP, Bankruptcy No. 83-00948-M7PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Before ASHLAND, VOLINN and PERRIS, Bankruptcy Judges. ASHLAND, Bankruptcy Judge:

The attorneys for the Chapter 7 trustee appeal the bankruptcy court’s disallowance of fees incurred in opposing a creditor’s successful objection to the attorneys’ final fee application, the court’s disallowance of interest on the attorneys’ fees, and the court’s disallowance of fees incurred in determining whether the attorneys were entitled to interest and in determining the amount of that interest. We affirm.

FACTS

Many of the underlying facts relevant to this appeal are set forth in this Panel’s decision…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Zurcher v. Stanford DailySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. In Re Nucorp Energy, Inc., an Ohio Corporation, and Its Affiliates, Debtors. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & ScrippsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
  3. Prandini v. National Tea Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
  4. Daily v. ZurcherDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1974
  5. The Stanford Daily v. James Zurcher, Individually and as Chief of Police of the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1977

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Pfeiffer v. Couch (In Re Xebec)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
  2. In Re MotleyUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · 1992
  3. In Re CoursonUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Iowa · 1992
  4. In Re MouradickUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API