Legal Opinion

In re Vanness

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California

Decided January 23, 2009No. 08-37853PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION REGARDING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY

KLEIN, Bankruptcy Judge.

The problem is how to deal with motions for relief from automatic stay that also seek relief available only by adversary proceeding. The practice of adding to stay relief motions procedurally incorrect requests for injunctions or extraordinary equitable relief has become a nuisance. This opinion points out that — in addition to denying the motion or merely rejecting the inappropriate relief — another arrow in the court’s quiver is to accept procedurally incorrect requests at face value by deeming the motion to be a…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  2. Weinberger v. Romero-BarceloSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Norwest Bank Worthington v. AhlersSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  4. In Re Thomas James Dyer, Debtor. Nancy Knupfer, Trustee v. John Lindblade, in Re Thomas James Dyer, Debtor, John Lindblade v. Nancy Knupfer, TrusteeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
  5. In Re Jonathan Barnes Leavitt, Debtor. Jonathan Barnes Leavitt v. Carlos SotoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. In Re Van NessUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California · 2009

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

Powered by the Exa API