Legal Opinion
In Re Quillen
United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland
Decided July 9, 2009No. 19-12685PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ROBERT A. GORDON, Bankruptcy Judge.
I. Preliminary Statement
The questions presented by James P. Quillen’s (Debtor) pro se, eve of conversion attempt to exempt literally all of the property interests he brought with him into his failed Chapter 11 bankruptcy case by way of his Amendment to Schedule C (Amended Exemption Schedule) (Dkt. No. 261) pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522 are many. 1 Considerable effort is required to sift through the knotty tangle of claims, contentions, charges and countercharges leveled by the parties to get at the heart of the material facts. Then, after the…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Connecticut National Bank v. GermainSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Taylor v. Freeland & KronzSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- In Re: Wayne E. Bell, Jr., Debtor. Wayne E. Bell, Jr. v. Deborah BellCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2000
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- In Re ManUnited States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2010
- In re: Ara Markosian and Anait MarkosianUnited States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- Pines Plaza Ltd. Partnership v. Berkley Trace, LLCCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2013
- Rogers v. Freeman (In re Freeman)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia · 2015
- Bellinger v. BuckleyDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2017
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.