Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Lawrence T. Lasagna, Inc. v. Foster

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided December 7, 1979No. 77-2664Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partEly, Circuit Judge

I concur only in that portion of my Brother’s Opinion which holds that the two lower courts erred in determining that Section 17(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Act1 was inapplicable under the facts as alleged by the judgment creditor, Lawrence T. Lasagna, *397Inc. (“Lasagna”). From the conclusion that Section 17(a)(8)2 is applicable, however, I respectfully dissent.

In its original action in state court, Lasagna sought to recover from Progressive Farming, Inc. (“Progressive”) and the three bankrupt appellees for tomato harvesting services rendered to Progressive by Lasagna. The state court awarded…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Tinker v. ColwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
  2. Gleason v. ThawSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
  3. McIntyre v. KavanaughSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  4. In Re James S. Nance, Bankrupt. Appeal of Coolidge Bank and Trust CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1977
  5. Baker v. Bryant Fertilizer Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1921

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

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

Powered by the Exa API