Legal Opinion · Dissent
Caudill v. N.C. MacHinery, Inc. (In Re American Eagle Mfg., Inc.)
United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit
Decided March 3, 1999No. BAP Nos. WW-97-1574-RRyRu, WW-97-1698-RRyRu, Bankruptcy No. 96-06145Published
1Dissent
RUSSELL, D., Bankruptcy Judge,
dissenting.
I disagree with the majority’s novel conclusion that Rule 2003(d) abridges or modifies the substantive rights found in § 702 in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2075. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure were promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2075. See In re Greene, 223 B.R. 548, 550 (N.D.Cal.1998). As the Ninth Circuit has explained:
The [ ] bankruptcy rules were studied by committees of
experts, then adopted by the Supreme Court, and became effective only after submission to Congress for…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- In Re H. Frank Dominguez, Debtor. H. Frank Dominguez v. David D. Miller Denyse M. MillerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- Druker v. Green (In Re Carla Leather, Inc.)District Court, S.D. New York · 1985
- In Re MelenyzerUnited States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas · 1992
- Kalyna v. Swaine (In Re Accomazzo)District Court, D. Arizona · 1998
- Moister v. Young (In Re Young)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia · 1988
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.