Shapiro & Ornish v. Holliday, 37 F.2d 407 (5th Cir. 1930). · Go Syfert
Search
Shapiro & Ornish v. Holliday, 37 F.2d 407 (5th Cir. 1930). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
45 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 26 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Modi v. Virani (ganb, 2017-07-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1934 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1934 1980 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Modi v. Virani
Bankr. N.D. Ga. · 2017 · confidence medium
“The question of whether a debtor satisfactorily explains' a loss of assets is a question of fact.” Id. (citing Shapiro & Ornish v. Holliday, 37 F.2d 407, 407 (5th Cir. 1930)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hawley v. Cement Industries, Inc.
11th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
In re Chalik, 748 F.2d 616, 619 (11th Cir.1984) (citing Shapiro & Ornish v. Holliday, 37 F.2d 407, 407 (5th Cir.1930)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) 33 Collier bankr.cas.2d 781, Bankr. L. Rep. P 76,478 in Re Phillip E. Hawley and Linda D. Hawley, Debtors. Phillip E. Hawley v. Cement Industries, Inc.
11th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
In re Chalik, 748 F.2d 616, 619 (11th Cir.1984) (citing Shapiro & Ornish v. Holliday, 37 F.2d 407, 407 (5th Cir.1930)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Haimes (In Re Haimes)
S.D. Fla. · 1992 · confidence medium
“The question of whether a debtor satisfactorily explains a loss of assets is a question of fact.” In re Chalik, 748 F.2d 616, 619 (11th Cir.1984) (per curiam) (citing Shapiro & Ornish v. Holliday, 37 F.2d 407, 407 (5th Cir.1930)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Seymour Chalik, Debtor. Seymour Chalik v. Harold D. Moorefield, Jr., Trustee
11th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
Shapiro & Ornish v. Holliday, 37 F.2d 407, 407 (5th Cir.1930).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
SHAPIRO & ORNISH, a Partnership, and Julius Shapiro and Louis Ornish, Individually, Appellants,
v.
J. J. HOLLIDAY, Trustee in the Matter of Shapiro & Ornish, a Partnership, and Julius Shapiro and Louis Ornish, Individually, Appellees
5557.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jan 7, 1930.
37 F.2d 407
Emil Corenbleth, of Dallas, Tex., for appellants., Robert Allan Ritchie and Fred J. Dudley, both of Dallas, Tex. (Dabney, Goggans & Ritchie, of Dallas, Tex., on the brief), for appellees.
Walker, Bryan, Foster.
Cited by 24 opinions  |  Published
FOSTER, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment denying a discharge in bankruptcy to appellants on the ground that they had failed to explain satisfactorily losses of assets and the deficiency of assets to meet their liabilities at the time of adjudication as bankrupts. Section 14b(7) Bankruptcy Act as amended by the Act of May 27, 1926 (11 USCA § 32).

This ease presents purely a question of fact. The District Court in 37 F.(2d) 403 reviewed the material facts and reached the conclusion that a discharge should be withheld. It would serve no good purpose to again review the facts. It is enough to say that the record supports the conclusion reached by the District Court.

Affirmed.