Legal Opinion
In Re Murray
United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio
Decided September 13, 2006No. 06-31616PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION REGARDING MOTION FOR ORDER CONFIRMING INAPPLICABILITY OF THE AUTOMATIC STAY
THOMAS F. WALDRON, Bankruptcy Judge.
BACKGROUND AND ESTABLISHED EVENTS
Pending before the court are the Creditor’s motion seeking an order that the automatic stay is not in effect in this case and the Debtor’s response that creditor action involving the property in question must occur exclusively in the bankruptcy court during the pendency of this case. As a result of the competing, applicable bankruptcy provisions, the position of each party is correct.
The Court’s record in this case establishes the following…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Connecticut National Bank v. GermainSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Kelly v. RobinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Ankenbrandt Ex Rel. L. R. v. RichardsSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- BFP v. Resolution Trust CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Taylor v. Freeland & KronzSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- In Re SorrellUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 2007
- Reswick v. Reswick (In Re Reswick)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- In Re JumppBankruptcy Appellate Panel of the First Circuit · 2006
- In Re CurryUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · 2007
- Rinard v. Positive Investments, Inc. (In Re Rinard)United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California · 2011
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.