Legal Opinion
In Re Wilhelm
United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Idaho
Decided July 7, 2009No. 19-00196PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
TERRY L. MYERS, Chief Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
In each of the above cases, parties claiming to be secured creditors (collectively, “Movants”) seek relief from the automatic stay. According to Movants, debtors have defaulted on their obligations under secured promissory notes.
Despite the similarities in the pending motions, the trustees have not uniformly responded. In Applegate and Wilhelm, trustee Ford Elsaesser objects to the motions, asserting that Movants failed to show an interest in the promissory notes at issue. 1 In Laford, trustee C. Barry Zimmerman stipulated to…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Butner v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Sprewell v. Golden State WarriorsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Davis v. Federal Election CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Bank of America, N.A. v. GibsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
- Landmark National Bank v. KeslerSupreme Court of Kansas · 2009
- Robinson v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- Trotter v. Bank of New York MellonIdaho Supreme Court · 2012
- In Re WeisbandUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Arizona · 2010
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.