Legal Opinion · Dissent

Diamond Hill Investment Co v. Shelden

Wyoming Supreme Court

Decided January 13, 1989No. 88-43Published

1DissentUrbigkit, Justice

This court in present decision misinterprets the relationship of present litigants to a completely disassociated bankruptcy stay for a result which only bails out a litigant from a pleading mistake. To achieve this end, federal bankruptcy law is misconstrued and consequently misapplied; thus, I dissent.

Although not directly raised in present appellate discussion, serious substantive factual questions exist as to the appropriateness and accuracy of the computation of amounts for which Thomas A. Shelden d/b/a Atria Architects (Atria) was given a priority claim and whether the lien claim lacked…

2Cases cited38 opinions

  1. Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Isaacs v. Hobbs Tie & Timber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
  3. In the Matter of Charles Holtkamp and Holtkamp Farms, Inc., Debtors-Appellants. Charles Holtkamp and Holtkamp Farms, Inc. v. Ronald E. LittlefieldCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1982
  4. Johnson v. First National Bank Of MontevideoCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1983
  5. John N. Fortier and Linda M. Fortier v. Dona Anna Plaza Partners, James A. Peterson, Peterson Properties, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1984

33 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