Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
In re Penn Central Transportation Co.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided March 3, 1976No. Nos. 75-1902, 75-2031 and 75-2151Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGibbons, Circuit Judge
I agree with the majority that the No. 75-1902 (Penn Central) appeal can at this stage be dismissed as moot. But because I cannot agree with the majority’s assumption that the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 (RRRA), 45 U.S.C. § 701-93, as amended, Pub.L. No. 94-5, 89 Stat. 7 (1975), preserves intact the equitable power vested in the reorganization court by § 77 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 205, to protect the debtor estate from erosion that is not of constitutional dimensions, I cannot join in the balance of the court’s opinion. And because I believe that the majority has erred…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Regional Rail Reorganization Act CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- New Haven Inclusion CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Penn-Central Merger & N & W Inclusion CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- United States v. Bankers Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- In Re Penn Central Transportation CompanySpecial Court under the Regional Rail Reorganization Act · 1974
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.