green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
35.7 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2001 ·
…the bankruptcy judge did not explicitly state under which paragraph of s 2715 he fashioned his remedy; however, we can presume that his calculation was rendered under 2715(b).
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
17 Collier bankr.cas.2d 1471, Bankr. L. Rep. P 72,131 Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation v. Alexander McCune and Bill L. Van Divner. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation v. Alexander McCune and Bill L. Van Divner and United Transportation Union. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation v. Alexander McCune and Bill L. Van Divner and United Transportation Union
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
But see In re Brown, 803 F.2d 120 (remand to bankruptcy court for computation of damages not final order where order will not affect distribution of assets or present threat of a later appeal undoing result of bankruptcy proceedings.) 17 In re Meyertech sets forth useful indicia to be employed in "balancing a general reluctance to expand traditional interpretations regarding finality and a desire to effectuate a practical termination of the matter" at bar. 831 F.2d at 414.
discussed
Cited "but see"
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. McCune
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
But see In re Brown, 803 F.2d 120 (remand to bankruptcy court for computation of damages not final order where order will not affect distribution of assets or present threat of a later appeal undoing result of bankruptcy proceedings.) In re Meyertech sets forth useful indicia to be employed in “balancing a general reluctance to expand traditional interpretations regarding finality and a desire to effectuate a practical termination of the matter” at bar. 831 F.2d at 414 .
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re: Grand Jury Investigation
the bankruptcy judge did not explicitly state under which paragraph of s 2715 he fashioned his remedy; however, we can presume that his calculation was rendered under 2715(b).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Impounded
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
the bankruptcy judge did not explicitly state under which paragraph of s 2715 he fashioned his remedy; however, we can presume that his calculation was rendered under 2715(b).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: Mallinckrodt plc
Bank of New York, 860 F.2d 94, 98 (3d Cir. 1988) (quoting Meyertech, 831 F.2d at 414).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sikirica v. Cohen (In Re Cohen)
Mgmt, 285 F.3d 268 , 279 (3d Cir.2002) (citing In re Meyertech Corp., 831 F.2d 410, 414 (3d Cir.1987)). “[A] bankruptcy court order ending a separate adversary proceeding is ap-pealable as a final order even though that order does not conclude the entire bankruptcy case.” Id. at 281 (quoting In re Moody, 817 F.2d 365, 367-68 (5th Cir.1987)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Electric MacHinery Enterprises, Inc. v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc. (In Re Electric MacHinery Enterprises, Inc.)
Southeastern Sprinkler Co. v. Meyertech Corp. (In re Meyertech Corp.), 831 F.2d 410, 417-18 (3d Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Martin v. CitiFinancial, Inc. (In Re Martin)
To hold that this court can not determine the validity, extent, or priority of any lien on estate property solely because the issue arose under state law would severely handcuff this Court from overseeing “the restructuring of debtor-creditor relations,” which is “the core of the federal bankruptcy power.” See Id. at 71 , 102 S.Ct. 2858 (Brennan, J., plurality); Southeastern Sprinkler Co. v. Meyertech Corp. (In re Meyertech Corp.), 831 F.2d 410, 417 (3d Cir.1987).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Patrick v. Dell Financial Services
Sprinkler Co. v. Meyertech Corp. (In re Meyertech Corp.), 831 F.2d 410, 414 (3d Cir.1987)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shubert v. Lucent Technologies Inc. (In Re Winstar Communications, Inc.)
Southeastern Sprinkler Co., Inc. v. Meyertech Corp. (In re Meyertech Corp.), 831 F.2d 410, 418 (3d Cir.1987)(creditor’s filing a proof of claim on a pre-petition breach of contract action created an action in bankruptcy court that “[b]y its very nature [ ] fits directly under the more specific definition of a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(B) .... ”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Owens Corning
Bank, 860 F.2d 94, 98 (3d Cir.1988) (quoting Southeastern Sprinkler Co., Inc. v. Meyertech Corp. (In re Meyertech), 831 F.2d 410, 414 (3d Cir.1987)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Owens Corning
Bank, 860 F.2d 94, 98 (3d Cir. 1988) (quoting Southeastern Sprinkler Co. Inc. v. Meyertech Corp. (In re Meyertech), 831 F.2d 410, 414 (3d Cir. 1987)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re American Capital Equipment, LLC
Pepper v. Litton, 308 U.S. 295, 304 , 60 S.Ct. 238 , 84 L.Ed. 281 (1939) (holding that the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court is exclusive of all other courts with respect to the allowance and disallowance of claims); In re Meyertech Corp., 831 F.2d 410, 417 (3d Cir.1987) (noting *574 that the process of allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate is a core proceeding); see also In re Adelphia Communications Corp., 307 B.R. 404, 418 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2004) (“‘Because nothing is more directly at the core of bankruptcy administration ... than the qualification of all liabilities of…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re G-I Holdings, Inc.
See also Pepper v. Litton, 308 U.S. 295, 304 , 60 S.Ct. 238 , 84 L.Ed. 281 (1939) (holding that the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court is exclusive of all other courts with respect to the allowance and disallowance of claims); Southeastern Sprinkler Co. v. Meyertech Corp. (In re Meyertech Corp.), 831 F.2d 410, 417 (3d Cir.1987) (noting that the process of allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate is a core proceeding); Buena Vista Television v. Adelphia Communications Corp. (In re Adelphia Communications Corp.), 307 B.R. 404, 418 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2004) (“ ‘Because nothing is m…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Phico Group, Inc. v. Persofsky (In Re Phico Group, Inc.)
Gulf States Exploration v. Manville Forest Products Corp. (In re Manville Forest Products Corp.), 896 F.2d 1384 , 1389—90 (2d Cir.1990)(holding that “when a creditor files a proof of claim, the bankruptcy court has core jurisdiction to determine that claim, even if it was a pre-petition contract claim arising under state law”); Southeastern Sprinkler Co., Inc. v. Meyertech Corp. (In re Meyertech Corp.), 831 F.2d 410, 418 (3d Cir.1987)(Court reasoned that creditor’s filing a proof of claim on a pre-petition breach of contract action created an action in bankruptcy court that "[b]y its v…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pineo v. CPT Holdings, Inc. (In Re J & L Structural, Inc.)
Professional Insurance Management Co. v. The Ohio Casualty Group of Insurance Companies (In re Professional Insurance Management Co.), 285 F.3d 268, 279 (3d Cir.2002) (citing In re Meyertech Corp., 831 F.2d 410, 414 (3d Cir.1987)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
HQ Global Workplaces, Inc. v. Bank of Nova Scotia (In Re HQ Global Holdings, Inc.)
Corp.), 896 F.2d 1384, 1389 (2d Cir.1990) (in determining whether a proceeding is a core proceeding, the “relevant inquiry is whether the nature of the adversary proceeding, rather than the state or federal basis for the claim, falls within the core of federal bankruptcy power”); Southeastern Sprinkler Co., Inc. v. Meyertech Corp. (In re Meyertech Corp.), 831 F.2d 410, 418 (3d Cir.1987) (creditor’s action for breach of warranty based on state law was correctly characterized as a claim against the debtor which was a core proceeding).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Haney v. Copeland (In Re Copeland)
Longo v. McLaren (In re McLaren), 3 F.3d 958, 965 (6th Cir.1993) (citing Atassi v. McLaren (In re McLaren), 990 F.2d 850 (6th Cir.1993)). 35 The Atassi decision adopted the Third Circuit’s holding in Southeastern Sprinkler Co., Inc. v. Meyertech Corp. (In re Meyertech Carp.), 831 F.2d 410, 417 (3d Cir.1987), which provided that “an action [brought by a creditor] which has as its foundation a question of the validity of a claim which accrued under state law against the bankrupt estate prior to bankruptcy” was a core proceeding pursuant to § 157(b)(2)(B), governing the “allowance or dis…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Professional Insurance Management v. Ohio Casualty Group of Insurance Companies (In re Professional Insurance Management)
(2×)
In re Meyertech Corp., 831 F.2d at 414.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Prof Ins Mgt
(2×)
In re Meyertech Corp., 831 F.2d at 414.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Professional Insurance Management, Debtor. Professional Insurance Management v. The Ohio Casualty Group of Insurance Companies the Ohio Casualty Insurance Ohio Life Insurance Company Ohio Security Insurance Company and Ocasco Budget West American Insurance Company American Fire and Casualty Company
(2×)
In re Meyertech Corp., 831 F.2d at 414.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Buncher Co. v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Genfarm Ltd. Partnership IV
In re Blatstein, 192 F.3d 88, 94 (3d Cir.1999); In re Meyertech Corp., 831 F.2d 410, 414 (3d Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Eric J. Blatstein Main, Inc., Debtors 718 Arch Street Associates, Ltd. v. Lori J. Blatstein Morris Lift Delawareco, inc.(d.c. Nos. 97-Cv-07063) in Re: Main, Inc., Debtor 718 Arch Street Associates, Ltd. Mitchell M. Miller v. Eric J. Blatstein Main, Inc. Lori J. Blatstein Morris Lift, Cpa Delawareco, Inc. Engine 46 Steak House, Inc. Reedco, Inc. Waterfront Management Corporation Columbusco, Inc. Airbev, Inc. Pier 53 North, Inc. (d.c. No. 97-Cv-07064) in Re: Main, Inc., Debtor 718 Arch Street Associates, Ltd. Mitchell M. Miller v. Eric J. Blatstein Lori J. Blatstein Main, Inc. Delawareco, Inc. Engine 46 Steak House, Inc. Reedco, Inc. Waterfront Management Corporation Columbusco, Inc. Airbev, Inc. Pier 43 North, Inc. Morris Lift, Cpa Main, Inc. (d.c. No. 97-Cv-07066) in Re: Main Inc. Debtor 718 Arch Street Associates, Ltd. Mitchell M. Miller v. Eric J. Blatstein Main, Inc. Lori J. Blatstein Morris Lift, Cpa Delawareco, Inc. Engine 46 Steak House, Inc. Reedco, Inc. Waterfront Management Corporation Columbsco, Inc. Airbev, Inc. Pier 53 North, Inc. (d.c. No. 97-Cv-07069) in Re: Eric J. Blatstein Main, Inc., Debtors 718 Arch Street Associates, Ltd. v. Eric J. Blatstein Main, Inc. Lori J. Blatstein Morris Lift, Cpa Delawareco, Inc. Engine 46 Steak House, Inc. Reedco, Inc., T/a Margarita Cafe Waterfront Management Corporation Columbusco, Inc. Airbev, Inc. Pier 53 North, Inc. (d.c. No. 97-Cv-07070) 718 Arch Street Associates, Ltd., Mitchell W. Miller, Esq., Trustee for the Main, Inc. Bankruptcy Estate and Michael H. Kaliner, Esq., Trustee for the Blatstein Bankruptcy Estate, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Yet, we have recognized that in a bankruptcy context we consider the question of whether an order or judgment is final "in a more pragmatic and less technical sense than in other matters. . . ." Meyertech Corp., 831 F.2d at 414.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Blatstein
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Yet, we have recognized that in a bankruptcy context we consider the question of whether an order or judgment is final "in a more pragmatic and less technical sense than in other matters. . . ." Meyertech Corp., 831 F.2d at 414.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Life Service Systems, Inc. v. Westmoreland County Mh/mr
This entails balancing “a general reluctance to expand traditional interpretations regarding finality and a desire to effectuate a practical termination of the matter before us.” In re Meyertech Corp., 831 F.2d 410, 414 (3d Cir.1987).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Cambridge Biotech Corporation Institut Pasteur and Genetic Systems Corporation v. Cambridge Biotech Corporation, Defendant-Cross
Phillips Constructors, Inc.), 45 F.3d 702, 705 (2d Cir.1995); In re Meyertech Corp. v. Southeastern Sprinkler Co., Inc. (In re Meyertech Corp.), 831 F.2d 410, 417 (3d Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Beneficial National Bank USA v. Best Receptions Systems, Inc. (In Re Best Reception Systems, Inc.)
Phillips Constructors, Inc.), 45 F.3d 702 , 704-06 (2d Cir.1995); Southeastern Sprinkler Co., Inc. v. Meyertech Corp. (In re Meyertech Corp.), 831 F.2d 410, 415-18 (3d Cir.1987); Wood, 825 F.2d at 97-98 ; Steinman v. Spencer (In re Argus Group 1700, Inc.), 206 B.R. 737, 747-48 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1996), aff'd, 206 B.R. 757 (E.D.Pa.1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Matter of Francisco Lopez, Debtor-Appellant
See In re Marin Motor Oil, Inc., 689 F.2d 445, 448-49 (3d Cir.1982); In re Continental Airlines, Inc., 932 F.2d 282, 285-86 (3d Cir.1991); In re Meyertech Corp., 831 F.2d 410, 414 (3d Cir.1987); In re Hammond, 27 F.3d 52 , 55 n. 5 (3d Cir.1994); In re Blue Coal Corp., 986 F.2d 687, 689 (3d Cir.1993); In re Comer, 716 F.2d 168, 172 (3d Cir.1983); In re Bonner Mall Partnership, 2 F.3d 899, 904-05 (9th Cir.1993), cert. dismissed, 513 U.S. 18 , 115 S.Ct. 386 , 130 L.Ed.2d 233 (1994); In re Stanton, 766 F.2d 1283, 1285-87 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam); In re Sambo’s Restaurants, Inc., 754 F.2d 811,…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Conejo Enterprises, Inc., Debtor (Two Cases). Benedor Corporation v. Conejo Enterprises, Inc., Ronald L. Durkin, Chapter 11 Trustee, on Behalf of Conejo Enterprises, Inc., Benedor Corporation v. Conejo Enterprises, Inc., and Western Waste Industries
See Atassi v. McLaren (In re McLaren), 990 F.2d 850, 853 (6th Cir.1993) ("A suit by a third party creditor ... against the debtor (and thus the bankruptcy estate) is a core proceeding under Sec. 157(b)(2)(B)."); Southeastern Sprinkler Co., Inc. v. Meyertech Corp. (In re Meyertech Corp.), 831 F.2d 410, 417-18 (3d Cir.1987) (holding state court action was core proceeding because creditor filed proof of claim); In re Wood, 825 F.2d at 97-98 (holding state action was non-core proceeding because creditor had not filed proof of claim). 19 Further, other courts have concluded that whether a creditor …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Benedor Corp. v. Conejo Enterprises, Inc.
See Atassi v. McLaren (In re McLaren), 990 F.2d 850, 853 (6th Cir.1993) (“A suit by a third party creditor ... against the debtor (and thus the bankruptcy estate) is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(B).”); Southeastern Sprinkler Co., Inc. v. Meyertech Corp. (In re Meyertech Corp.), 831 F.2d 410, 417-18 (3d Cir.1987) (holding state court action was core proceeding because creditor filed proof of claim); In re Wood, 825 F.2d at 97-98 (holding state action was non-core proceeding because creditor had not filed proof of claim).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Kaplan
D.N.J.1993) (citing In re Meyertech Corp., 831 F.2d 410, 417-418 (3d Cir.1987)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jarecki v. Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Fund
In re Meyertech Corp., 831 F.2d 410, 414-15 (3d Cir.1987); Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Makoroff, 153 B.R. 155 (W.D.Pa.1993); In re Metro Communications, Inc., 135 B.R. 15 (W.D.Pa.1991), rev’d on other grounds, 945 F.2d 635 (3d Cir.1991).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. v. Clark Entertainment Group, Inc. (In Re Clark Entertainment Group, Inc.)
In re Meyertech Corp., 831 F.2d 410, 416-18 (3rd Cir.1987).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Berger v. Trans World Airlines (In Re Trans World Airlines, Inc.)
In re Market Square Inn, Inc., 978 F.2d 116, 120 (3d Cir.1992) (quoting In re Meyertech Corp., 831 F.2d 410, 414 (3d Cir.1987)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sacred Heart Hospital v. Independence Blue Cross (In Re Sacred Heart Hospital)
Phillips Constructors, Inc., 45 F.3d 702 , 705-06 (2d Cir.1995) (where creditor files a *203 proof of claim, core status is established, irrespective of nature of claims involved, citing Langenkamp v. Culp, 498 U.S. 42, 44 , 111 S.Ct. 330, 331 , 112 L.Edüd 343 (1990)); In re Harris Pine MiUs, 44 F.3d 1431 , 1435-38 (9th Cir.1995) (claim arising post-petition, out of a post-petition sale of debtor’s assets, is core); and In re Meyertech Corp., 831 F.2d 410, 414-18 (3d Cir.1987) (counterclaim to a creditor’s proof of claim is core, despite raising underlying substantive state law issues).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Glenstone Lodge, Inc. v. Buckhead America Corp. (In Re Buckhead America Corp.)
In re Market Square Inn, Inc., 978 F.2d 116, 120 (3d Cir.1992) (quoting In re Meyertech Corp., 831 F.2d 410, 414 (3d Cir.1987)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
E & C Holding Co. v. Township of Piscataway (In re Eastern Steel Barrel Corp.)
See also Century Glove, 860 F.2d at 98 ; F/S Airlease II, Inc. v. Simon, 844 F.2d 99 , 104 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S, 852, 109 S.Ct. 137 , 102 L.Ed.2d 110 (1988); Meyertech, 831 F.2d at 414; Walsh Trucking, 838 F.2d at 701.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Commerce Bank Harris Savings Association v. Mountain View Village, Inc. Property Management, Inc., Mountain View Village, Inc.
See F/S Airlease II, Inc., 844 F.2d at 104; In re Meyertech Corp., 831 F.2d 410, 414 (3d Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Atassi v. McLaren
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Id. at 417 (emphasis in original). 4 The district court properly affirmed the judgment of the bankruptcy court since the latter had determined the existence and validity of the debt due Atassi in a “core proceeding,” and since the district court also carefully considered the dischargeability of the debt issue.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In RE McLAREN
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Id. at 417 (emphasis in original). 4 28 The district court properly affirmed the judgment of the bankruptcy court since the latter had determined the existence and validity of the debt due Atassi in a "core proceeding," and since the district court also carefully considered the dischargeability of the debt issue. 29 We, accordingly, AFFIRM the decision of the district court and that of the bankruptcy court in all respects. 1 Atassi sued on his own behalf, as representative of his medical corporation, Mohamed A. Atassi, M.D., Inc., and as Trustee of the Mohamed A. Atassi, M.D., Inc. Pension Tru…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Atassi v. McLaren (In re McLaren)
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Id. at 417 (emphasis in original). 4 The district court properly affirmed the judgment of the bankruptcy court since the latter had determined the existence and validity of the debt due Atassi in a “core proceeding,” and since the district court also carefully considered the dischargeability of the debt issue.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Market Square Inn, Inc., Glass Plaza Associates, a Limited Partnership
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Thus we have found jurisdiction, for example, over an order partially remanding the calculation of an award to the bankruptcy court, Meyertech, 831 F.2d at 412; over an order holding that the debtor was a railroad for purposes of federal bankruptcy law, Wheeling-Pittsburgh, 836 F.2d at 158 ; over an order denying a motion to dismiss a debtor’s Chapter 7 case, In re Christian, 804 F.2d 46, 47-48 (3d Cir.1986); over an order approving a broker’s application for payment of administrative expenses but which remanded for further proceedings regarding the amount of compensation, F/S Airlease II,…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bennett v. Genoa Ag Center, Inc. (In Re Bennett)
Additionally, the court In re Meyertech Corp., 831 F.2d 410, 416 (3d Cir.1987), noted that “[i]t is difficult to perceive of a proceeding which would not fall under the all-encompassing language of either § 157(b)(2)(A) or § 157(b)(2)(0).” However, as discussed below, this is not to say there are no limits on the core jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Glen Eagle Square, Inc. v. Meehan-Weinmann, Inc. (In Re Glen Eagle Square, Inc.)
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Cf. In re Meyertech Corp., 831 F.2d 410, 414-18 (3d Cir.1987) (filing of lawsuit against debtor in bankruptcy court is, in effect, a filing of a proceeding regarding allowance or disal-lowance of claims within the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 157 (b)(2)(B)); and Marshland Dev., supra, 129 B.R. at 630 , 21 B.C.D. at 1484 (proceeding in which the debtor challenged a cause of action of a claimant is the “functional equivalent” of an objection to the claim).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Davis v. the Merv Griffin Co.
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
The Third Circuit in In re Meyertech Corp., 831 F.2d 410, 418 (3d Cir.1987), held that an adversary proceeding instituted by a creditor against a Chapter 11 debtor based on state law product liability claims based upon a breach of warranty was properly characterized as a claim against the bankrupt estate, its allowance or disallowance being a “core” proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(B).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Allegheny International, Inc. v. Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corporation
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
However, “[t]he application of this less stringent definition of finality in bankruptcy cases is not without limitation.” In re Meyertech Corp., 831 F.2d 410, 414 (3d Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Robert Christopher Associates v. Franklin Realty Group, Inc. (In Re FRG, Inc.)
In any event, we find that the matter is core under 28 U.S.C. § 157 (b)(2)(B), as this proceeding is the archetype of a matter so classified in In re Meyertech Corp., 831 F.2d 410, 415-18 (3d Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United Jersey Bank/Central, N.A. v. Collated Products Corp. (In Re Collated Products Corp.)
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Cir.1988); In re Meyertech Corp., 831 F.2d 410, 414 (3d Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marshall v. Michigan Department of Agriculture (In Re Marshall)
Marshall’s reliance on In re Meyertech Corp., 831 F.2d 410, 417 (3rd Cir.1987), is misplaced as that case is readily distinguishable: first, in Meyertech the creditor filed its claim against the estate and; second, the creditor, not the debtor, initially filed its action prepetition, the basis of which was the validity of a claim which accrued under state law prior to bankruptcy- Nor is this a core proceeding under Section 157(b)(2)(C), “counterclaims by the estate against persons filing claims against the estate.” The MDA has not filed a claim against the estate.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Chateaugay Corp.
See, e.g., In re Manville Forest Products Corporation, 896 F.2d 1384, 1388-89, 1390 (2d Cir.1990); In re Meyertach Corp., 831 F.2d 410, 417-18 (3rd Cir.1987); In re L.B.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Cresenzi Bird Importers, Inc., Novak's Tropical Aviary, Inc., and Supreme Exotic Birds, Inc.
v.
The State of New York, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and Henry G. Williams, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
v.
The State of New York, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and Henry G. Williams, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
175.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Oct 27, 1987.
Published
Citer courts: Third Circuit (2)
CRESENZI BIRD IMPORTERS, INC., Novak's Tropical Aviary,
Inc., and Supreme Exotic Birds, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
The STATE OF NEW YORK, the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, and Henry G. Williams, as
Commissioner of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 175, Docket 87-7393.
United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.
Argued Oct. 26, 1987.
Decided Oct. 27, 1987.
Jane Bilus Gould, White Plains, N.Y. (Lovett & Gould, Christine V. Knepper, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.
Ezra I. Bialik, New York City, Asst. Atty. Gen., Environmental Protection Bureau, (Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., Betsy Martin, Law Intern, of counsel), for defendants-appellees.
Raymond B. Ludwiszewski, Associate Deputy Atty. Gen., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Roger J. Marzulla, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Rudolph Guiliani, U.S. Atty., Donald A. Carr and Louise Doherty Jacobs, James E. Salzman, Harvard Law School student, on brief) for U.S. as amicus curiae.
John A. Humbach, Nat. Audubon Society, c/o Pace University School of Law, White Plains, N.Y., for Nat. Audubon Society as amicus curiae.
Before FEINBERG, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and WINTER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
1
Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, William C. Conner, J., dismissing their complaint and denying them a preliminary injunction in their challenge to the New York Wild Bird Law, N.Y.Envtl.Conserv.Law Sec. 11-1728 (McKinney 1984), and regulations promulgated thereunder, on various federal and state constitutional and statutory grounds. The judgment of the district court is affirmed substantially for the reasons given by Judge Conner in his thorough opinion reported at 658 F.Supp. 1441 (S.D.N.Y.1987).