Legal Opinion
In Re Harlie L. Teigen Jane Teigen, Debtors, Harlie L. Teigen Jane Teigen Bar 11 Ranch, Ltd. Nathan O. Teigen William Harlie Teigen Matthew Lee Teigen v. Dennis C. Hoeger, Trustee
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided June 2, 1994No. 92-36674Unpublished
1Opinion of the Court
17 F.3d 396
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
In re Harlie L. TEIGEN; Jane Teigen, Debtors,
Harlie L. TEIGEN; Jane Teigen; Bar 11 Ranch, Ltd.; Nathan
O. Teigen; William Harlie Teigen; Matthew Lee
Teigen, Appellants,
v.
Dennis C. HOEGER, Trustee, Appellee.
No. 92-36674.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Deferred Jan. 7, 1994.
Submitted Jan. 14, 1994.
Decided…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- In Re Pacor, Inc. v. John Higgins, Jr. And Louise HigginsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1984
- In Re David Lee Carraher and Phyllis Diane Carraher, Debtors. David L. Carraher Phyllis D. Carraher, and Ronald C. Lapekas v. Morgan Electronics, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Bankr. L. Rep. P 74,571 in Re Judy L. Dewalt, Debtor. Manufacturers Hanover, Fka Finance One of California, Inc. v. Judy L. DewaltCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Montana National Bank v. MichelsMontana Supreme Court · 1981
- O'CONNOR v. LewisMontana Supreme Court · 1989
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.