Legal Opinion

Schmitt v. Lumbard

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided September 7, 1977No. 77 B 73PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HAIGHT, District Judge:

Carl F. Schmitt, Superintendent of Banks of the State of California (the “Superintendent”) appeals from three orders of the Hon. John J. Galgay, Bankruptcy Judge, which in effect directed the Superintendent to turn over to Eliot Lumbard, the Receiver of debtor-in-possession Universal Money Order Co. (“UMO”) assets of UMO which the Superintendent had seized in California. The Receiver and UMO resist the Superintendent’s appeal, which is before the Court pursuant to Bankruptcy Rules 801 et seq. For the reasons stated, the orders appealed from are affirmed.

I

The facts as…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Perez. v. CampbellSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
  3. Mueller v. NugentSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
  4. Straton v. NewSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  5. Taubel-Scott-Kitzmiller Co. v. FoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1924

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In Re Visiting Home Services, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
  2. In Re Universal Money Order Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1977
  3. England v. Industrial Commission of UtahCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981

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

Powered by the Exa API