green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
31.3 score
“the determination of attorneys' fees in a bankruptcy proceeding is normally left to the sound discretion of the bankruptcy judge unless the bankruptcy judge abuses his discretion.”
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 32 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
David Ostrander v. Elaine Dowd
the determination of attorneys' fees in a bankruptcy proceeding is normally left to the sound discretion of the bankruptcy judge unless the bankruptcy judge abuses his discretion.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sethna v. Brown
As the Eleventh Circuit has explained, permitting a party to withhold objections until appeal would enable litigants “to say nothing to the bankruptcy court, await its ruling, bypass that judgment, and for the first time take that objection to the district court.” Valdez v. Feltman (In re Worldwide Web Sys.), 328 F.3d 1291, 1300 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting In re Daikin Miami Overseas, Inc., 868 F.2d 1201, 1208 (11th Cir. 1989)). 16 Even if the Court were to reach the merits of the issue, Brown’s argument lacks evidentiary support.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Acute, Inc. v. ECI Pharmaceuticals, LLC
Nor is this a case where “the interest of substantial justice is at stake,” Access Now, 385 F.3d at 1332 (quotation omitted), a circumstance that is “generally equated with the vindication of fundamental constitutional rights.” In re Daikin Miami Overseas, Inc., 868 F.2d 1201, 1207 (11th Cir. 1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jareth Richey v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner
In re Daikin Miami Overseas, 868 F.2d 1201, 1207 (11th Cir. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Juanita Jackson v. Rubin Schron
“We have declined to address issues not raised before the bankruptcy court because an alternate course would ‘delay the disposition of bankruptcy cases’ and permit a party . . . to ‘say nothing to the bankruptcy court, await its ruling, bypass that judgment, and for the first time take that objection to the district court.’” In re Worldwide Web Sys., Inc., 328 F.3d 1291, 1300 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting In re Daikin Miami Overseas, Inc., 868 F.2d 1201, 1208 (11th Cir. 1989). 3 In their opening brief, the Estates listed the figure of “extraneous” costs as $15,750.10, but changed i…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Teresa Cardenas v. Madison Realty Capital LP
Ms. Cardenas argues that substantial justice “certainly is at stake” because Madison is “already overpaid.” But this Court has generally limited the substantial justice exception to “the vindication of fundamental constitutional rights.” See In re Daikin Miami Overseas, Inc., 868 F.2d 1201, 1207 (11th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Victoria v. Greenville Hospital Corp. (In Re Victoria)
In re Daikin Miami Overseas Inc., 868 F.2d 1201, 1207 (11th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
SEC v. Joseph D. Radcliffe
Daikin Miami Overseas, Inc. v. Lee, Schulte, Murphy & Coe, P.A., 868 F.2d 1201, 1206 (11th Cir.1989) ("If a party has an objection, the party must make the objection.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Diversified Corporate Consulting Group
Daikin Miami Overseas, Inc. v. Lee, Schulte, Murphy & Coe, P.A., 868 F.2d 1201, 1206 (11th Cir.1989) (“If a party has an objection, the party must make the objection.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
D. Omar Valdez, Worldstar Communications Corp. v. James S. Feltman
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
We have declined to address issues not raised before the bankruptcy court because an alternate course would “delay the disposition of bankruptcy cases” and permit a party objecting to the default judgment to “say nothing to the bankruptcy court, await its ruling, bypass that judgment, and for the first time take that objection to the district court.” In re Daikin Miami Overseas, Inc., 868 F.2d 1201, 1208 (11th Cir.1989); see also, e.g., In re Freeman, 956 F.2d 252 , 255 (11th Cir.1992) (declining to consider issues not raised' with the bankruptcy court).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hugh STEWART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee
In re Daikin Miami Overseas, 868 F.2d 1201, 1207 (11th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Town of Highland Beach
Co., Inc., 899 F.2d 1045 , 1060 n. 8 (11th Cir.1990); In re Daikin Miami Overseas, Inc., 868 F.2d 1201, 1206 (11th Cir.1989); Sanders v. United States, 740 F.2d 886, 888 (11th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Resolution Trust Corporation v. Town Of Highland Beach
Co., Inc., 899 F.2d 1045 , 1060 n. 8 (11th Cir.1990); In re Daikin Miami Overseas, Inc., 868 F.2d 1201, 1206 (11th Cir.1989); Sanders v. United States, 740 F.2d 886, 888 (11th Cir.1984). 113 Acknowledging its waiver of this issue, and citing this court's decision in Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Fernandez, 741 F.2d 355, 360 (11th Cir.1984), the Town argues that we should relieve it from its waiver.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Farm Credit of Central Florida, ACA v. Polk
Bankruptcy Rule 8013 provides that when a district court hears an appeal from a bankruptcy judge’s order “findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the bankruptcy court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” In re Alchar Hardware Co., Inc., 764 F.2d 1530, 1533 (11th Cir.1985); In re Daikin Miami Overseas, Inc., 868 F.2d 1201, 1206 (11th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Billingsley v. Jefferson County
The issues raised on this appeal are tenuous to say the least. 4 In the case of In re Daikin Miami Overseas, Inc., 868 F.2d 1201, 1207 (11th Cir.1989), this court identified “five exceptions to the general rule that an appellate court will refuse to consider an issue not presented to the trial court and raised for the first time on appeal.” We need not review those exceptions again.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Billingsley v. Jefferson County
The issues raised on this appeal are tenuous to say the least. 4 17 In the case of In re Daikin Miami Overseas, Inc., 868 F.2d 1201, 1207 (11th Cir.1989), this court identified "five exceptions to the general rule that an appellate court will refuse to consider an issue not presented to the trial court and raised for the first time on appeal." We need not review those exceptions again.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Doe v. Garrett
Cf. In re Daikin Miami Overseas, Inc., 868 F.2d 1201, 1207 (11th Cir.1989) (issue not raised below may be considered where “pure question of law” is involved and refusal to consider it “would result in a miscarriage of justice”)- In the interest of responding fully to all aspects of Doe’s claim, however, we note that Doe’s analogy to Watkins is strained indeed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Doe v. Garrett, III
Cf. In re Daikin Miami Overseas, Inc., 868 F.2d 1201, 1207 (11th Cir.1989) (issue not raised below may be considered where "pure question of law" is involved and refusal to consider it "would result in a miscarriage of justice").
cited
Cited "see"
Eugene Telfair v. First Union Mortgage Corp
See In re Daikin Miami Overseas, Inc., 868 F.2d 1201, 1206 (11th Cir.1989). 3 verified, and the bankruptcy court granted the Telfairs ninety days to trace the missing payments.
cited
Cited "see"
Eugene Telfair v. First Union Mortgage Corporation
See In re Daikin Miami Overseas, Inc., 868 F.2d 1201, 1206 (11th Cir.1989). 7 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Eugene Telfair v. First Union Mortgage Corp
See In re Daikin Miami Overseas, Inc., 868 F.2d 1201, 1206 (11th Cir. 1989). 5 First Union voluntarily withdrew the first two requests in order to verify receipt of payments allegedly sent by the Telfairs.
cited
Cited "see"
James KIMBROUGH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOWMAN TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant-Appellant
See Daikin Miami Overseas, Inc. v. Lee, Schulte, Murphy & Coe, 868 F.2d 1201, 1207 (11th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited "see"
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver of Cypress Savings Association v. 232, Inc., a Florida Corporation John M. McCabe Thomas W. Underwood Jointly and Severally With Thomas S. Patton, Harbor Federal Savings & Loan Association, Willis, Gwin & Associates, Inc., N/k/a Shoults, Gwin & Associates, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Defendant-Intervenor
See In re Daikin Miami Overseas, Inc., 868 F.2d 1201, 1207 (11th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited "see"
Federal Deposit Insurance v. 232, Inc.
See In re Daikin Miami Overseas, Inc., 868 F.2d 1201, 1207 (11th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Barnett v. Securities Groups (In re Monetary Group)
See In re The Monetary Group, 91 B.R. at 140-41 ; accord In re Daikin Miami Overseas, Inc., 868 F.2d 1201, 1207 (11th Cir.1989) (listing five instances in which extraordinary review may be exercised); MortgageAmerica Corp. v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc., 789 F.2d 1146, 1149-50 (5th Cir.1986); In re Facility Sys., Inc., 101 B.R. 519, 522-24 (N.D.Ill.1989).
cited
Cited "see"
Sarah Formby v. Farmers and Merchants Bank
See generally In re Daikin Miami Overseas, Inc., 868 F.2d 1201, 1207 (11th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Blue Cross v. Sanders
Finally, it may be appropriate to consider an issue first raised on appeal if that issue presents significant questions of general impact or of great public concern. 741 F.2d 355, 360-61 (11th Cir. 1984) (internal quotations, citations, and ellipsis omitted); see also In re Daikin Miami Overseas, Inc., 868 F.2d 1201, 1207 (11th Cir.1989) (stating that the third exception generally refers to the vindication of fundamental constitutional rights). 21
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Sanders
Finally, it may be appropriate to consider an issue first raised on appeal if that issue presents significant questions of general impact or of great public concern. 741 F.2d 355, 360-61 (11th Cir.1984) (internal quotations, citations, and ellipsis omitted); see also In re Daikin Miami Overseas, Inc., 868 F.2d 1201, 1207 (11th Cir.1989) (stating that the third exception generally refers to the vindication of fundamental constitutional rights).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Narey v. Dean
Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Fernandez, 741 F.2d 355, 360-61 (11th Cir.1984) (footnotes and citations omitted); see also In re Daikin Miami Overseas, Inc., 868 F.2d 1201, 1207 (11th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Narey v. Dean
Finally, it may be appropriate to consider an issue first raised on appeal if that issue presents significant questions of general impact or of great public concern. 28 Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Fernandez, 741 F.2d 355, 360-61 (11th Cir.1984) (footnotes and citations omitted); see also In re Daikin Miami Overseas, Inc., 868 F.2d 1201, 1207 (11th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Baumann v. Savers Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n
Third, the rule does not bar consideration by the appellate court in the first instance 'where the interest of substantial justice is at stake.' Fourth, 'a federal appellate court is justified in resolving an issue not passed on below ... where the proper resolution is beyond any doubt.' Finally, it may be appropriate to consider an issue first raised on appeal if that issue presents significant questions of general impact or of great public concern. 32 Id. at 360-61 (citations omitted); see also In re Daikin Miami Overseas, Inc., 868 F.2d 1201, 1206-07 (11th Cir.1989) (addressing the five con…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Baumann v. Savers Federal Savings & Loan Assoc.
Id. at 360-61 (citations omitted); see also In re Daikin Miami Overseas, Inc., 868 F.2d 1201, 1206-07 (11th Cir.1989) (addressing the five considerations).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
John Timothy Singer, Jonathan Swapp, Addam W. Swapp, and Vickie L. Singer
v.
John Timothy Singer, Jonathan Swapp, Addam W. Swapp, and Vickie L. Singer
88-2619.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Mar 6, 1989.
Published
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
John Timothy SINGER, Jonathan Swapp, Addam W. Swapp, and
Vickie L. Singer, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 88-2619, 88-2624, 88-2625 and 88-2626.
United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit.
March 6, 1989.
Before MOORE, BALDOCK and EBEL, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
[*~1201]1
On consideration of the motion and responses of the parties, the en banc opinion of the district court is reversed [695 F.Supp. 1140] and these appeals are remanded for resentencing under the Guidelines. Mistretta v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 647, 102 L.Ed.2d 714 (1989).
[*~1206]2
Numbers 88-2516, 88-2433, 88-2435 and 88-2437 are partially remanded for resentencing. Briefing on the merits of the appeals from the judgments of conviction will continue. If defendants are dissatisfied with the sentences under the Guidelines, new notices of appeal will be required. The sentence appeals, if any, will be consolidated with the appeals of the judgments and short supplemental briefs will be allowed.
[*~1207]3
Certified copies of this order shall stand as and for the mandates of the court.