CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. No. 06-03609, No. 06-03654
Regular Panel Decision

Padilla v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. (In Re Padilla)

This case addresses how the Bankruptcy Code and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure affect a mortgage lender's right to collect 'Reimbursable Expenses' in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases. The Court examined the collection of such expenses both pre- and post-confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan. It held that Bankruptcy Rule 2016(a) governs the collection of these expenses by mortgage lenders in Chapter 13 cases, both pre and post-confirmation. The Court determined that while Section 506(b) limits pre-confirmation expenses for oversecured creditors, it does not apply post-confirmation. Furthermore, the Court found that failure to comply with Rule 2016(a) or the imposition of unauthorized expenses would entitle a debtor to relief, but that such conduct does not violate the automatic stay. The cross-motions for partial summary judgment were denied due to insufficient evidence regarding actual collection of disputed charges.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13Mortgage ServicingReimbursable ExpensesAttorney FeesBankruptcy ProcedureRule 2016(a)Section 506(b)Plan ConfirmationAutomatic Stay
References
86
Case No. 2-04-255-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2005

Anton Antonov and Tanev & Son Trucking v. Sonja Walters and Shawn Brown, in His Capacity as Chapter 7 Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Delbert and Sonya Walters

The appellants, Anton Antonov and Tanev & Son Trucking, appealed a judgment in favor of Sonja Walters and Shawn Brown. Appellants raised three issues: Sonja Walters' lack of standing due to her bankruptcy, the trial court's denial of Shawn Brown's intervention, and the legal and factual insufficiency of evidence for Sonja's future medical expenses. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Sonja had standing because her claims were properly exempted from the bankruptcy estate, Brown's intervention was timely as it related back to Sonja's original suit, and sufficient evidence supported the jury's award for future medical expenses given Sonja's permanent brain injury and ongoing treatment.

BankruptcyStandingInterventionFuture Medical ExpensesSufficiency of EvidencePersonal InjuryMotor Vehicle AccidentExemptionsChapter 7 TrusteeAppellate Review
References
31
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 04714 [140 AD3d 958]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2016

Matter of Klein v. Pereira

This case involves a proceeding initiated by Abraham Klein to confirm an arbitration award dated March 31, 2009. John S. Pereira, as Bankruptcy Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Christine Persaud, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted the petition to confirm the award and denied his motion to vacate it. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order, concluding that the appellant failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitrator had exceeded their power. The court noted that the arbitration clause was broad, granting the arbitrator authority to resolve 'any business dispute.'

arbitration awardCPLR article 75vacate arbitrationconfirm arbitrationarbitrator's powerappellate reviewKings Countybusiness disputebankruptcy trusteeagreement terms
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Richardson Dinner Theatre, Inc.

The case concerns the priority classification of employer's FICA taxes, generated by wages earned before bankruptcy but paid after, within bankruptcy proceedings. The United States argued for first priority as 'costs and expenses of administration,' while the trustee and Bankruptcy Judge deemed them fourth priority as 'taxes legally due and owing by the bankrupt.' The court also considered a second priority classification as 'wages' based on precedent. Ultimately, the court affirmed the Bankruptcy Judge's decision, holding that employer's FICA taxes are properly assigned fourth priority status under Section 64a(4) of the Bankruptcy Act, distinguishing them from employee's FICA taxes and income withholding taxes.

Bankruptcy lawFICA taxesTax priorityBankruptcy ActEmployer contributionsWage claimsAdministrative costsFederal courtsJudicial reviewStatutory interpretation
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 1998

Bush v. Taylor (In Re Taylor & Associates, L.P.)

This appeal arises from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee's dismissal of an involuntary bankruptcy petition filed against Taylor & Associates, L.P. The appellants, a group of creditors led by James S. Bush, challenged the Bankruptcy Court's decision, arguing that Taylor & Associates, L.P. was an implied general partnership between Joseph C. Taylor and Dudley W. Taylor, making it eligible as a debtor under Chapter 7. The District Court reviewed whether the 'clear and convincing evidence' standard was correctly applied to establish an oral partnership under Tennessee law, affirming that it was. Further, the court conducted a de novo review of the sufficiency of evidence and affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's finding that the appellants failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Taylor & Associates, L.P. was such a partnership, especially concerning the parameters and purpose of any alleged partnership and its identity with the named entity. Consequently, the dismissal of the involuntary petition was affirmed.

BankruptcyPartnership LawInvoluntary PetitionClear and Convincing EvidenceTennessee LawFraudPonzi SchemeCorporate EntitiesAppellate ReviewStandard of Proof
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Fairpoint Communications, Inc.

Verizon Communications, Inc. appealed a bankruptcy court's confirmation order that included an injunction preventing Verizon from pursuing non-derivative claims against third parties, which could adversely affect FairPoint's bankruptcy estate. FairPoint, which acquired landline operations from Verizon, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy due to substantial debt. The reorganization plan featured a 'Verizon Injunction' designed to protect FairPoint's assets from claims where FairPoint might be liable for indemnification or contribution. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction to issue this injunction, holding that such contingent indemnification obligations directly impact the bankruptcy estate. The court also deemed Verizon's alternative argument, concerning the absence of 'unique circumstances,' as equitably moot, citing the substantial consummation of the reorganization plan and Verizon's failure to seek a stay of the confirmation order.

BankruptcyChapter 11 ReorganizationInjunctionsSubject Matter JurisdictionEquitable MootnessThird-Party ClaimsIndemnificationContributionAppellate ReviewDistrict Court Decision
References
18
Case No. 06-02-00183-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2004

Russell Burke and Wife, Lori Burke, and Bob Anderson, as Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee v. Union Pacific Resources Company, N/K/A Anadarko E & P Company, Palestine Water Well Service, Inc. and Jere Pritchett

This case concerns an appeal regarding property damage to a water well caused by seismic testing. The appellants, Russell and Lori Burke and their bankruptcy trustee, sued Union Pacific Resources Company (UPRC) and Palestine Water Well Service, Inc. (PWW). The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that the Burkes' negligence claim and PWW's tortious interference claim were barred by the statute of limitations. For the Burkes' breach of contract claim, the court found the $1.5 million jury award factually insufficient, suggesting a remittitur. Following the acceptance of a $653,700.00 remittitur by the Burkes, the judgment was modified and affirmed, resulting in a recovery of $842,300.00 for the Burkes and a take-nothing judgment for PWW.

Property DamageSeismic TestingWater WellCattle FeedlotBreach of ContractNegligenceTortious InterferenceStatute of LimitationsDiscovery RuleDamages
References
74
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 1993

Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International v. American National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.)

This opinion addresses appeals from orders in the bankruptcy proceedings of Eastern Airlines, Inc. Appellants, including two labor unions (ALPA, IAM) and preferred shareholders, challenged a settlement agreement between Eastern and its affiliates (Continental Debtors and Individual Signatories), and sought to unseal an examiner's record. They also contested the Bankruptcy Court's finding that preferred shareholders' claims were derivative and belonged to the Eastern Estate. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's approval of the settlement, finding it reasonable given litigation complexities and risks, and upheld the protective orders sealing the examiner's record, citing the unique nature of bankruptcy investigations and the prior reliance on confidentiality. Finally, the court concluded that the preferred shareholders' claims were indeed derivative under Delaware law, thus properly belonging to the Eastern Estate and subject to the settlement.

BankruptcySettlement AgreementDerivative ClaimsProtective OrdersExaminer's ReportCorporate GovernanceFiduciary DutyShareholder RightsCreditorsLabor Unions
References
55
Case No. No. 75 B 1735
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1976

In Re WT Grant Co.

This case from the U.S. District Court, S.D. New York, addresses three appeals related to the bankruptcy estate of W. T. Grant Company. Paul S. Berger, Trustee, and other plaintiffs-appellants challenged a Bankruptcy Court order dismissing their amended complaint. They also appealed the denial of their motions for a nunc pro tunc extension to file a notice of appeal and for reconsideration of that denial. District Judge Irving Ben Cooper granted the defendant trustee Charles G. Rodman's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' initial appeal, ruling it was untimely filed 18 days after the Bankruptcy Court's order, exceeding the 10-day limit with a 30-day absolute maximum. The court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's subsequent denials of the extension and reconsideration motions, emphasizing the strict interpretation of Bankruptcy Rules 801, 802, and 803 to ensure the expeditious and final administration of bankrupt estates.

Bankruptcy AppealTimelinessNotice of AppealExcusable NeglectJurisdictional DefectBankruptcy Rules 801Bankruptcy Rules 802Bankruptcy Rules 803Finality of OrdersTrustee in Bankruptcy
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 3,853 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational