green
Positive treatment
12.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: Peter Contini
(In re Pintlar Corp.), 124 F.3d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1997)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC v. Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc.
(In re Pintlar Corp.), 124 F.3d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir.1997).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Focus Media, Inc., Debtor, Focus Media, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Company Inc. Abc Inc. Paxson Communications Inc.
Co. (In re Pintlar Corp.), 124 F.3d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir.1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Flores
Corp., 316 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.2003) (“[T]he automatic stay provision is designed to forfend against the disorderly, piecemeal dismemberment of the debtor’s estate outside the bankruptcy proceedings”) (citing Soares v. Brockton Credit Union (In re Soares), 107 F.3d 969, 975-76 (1st Cir.1997)); Pintlar Corp. v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York (In re Pintlar Corp.), 124 F.3d 1310, 1313 (9th Cir.1997) (“Its purpose is to ‘prevent[] dismemberment of the estate, ensure[ ] orderly liquidation, and grant[] the trustee time to familiarize himself with the various rights and interests in…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brudos v. Palmateer
The Ninth Circuit stated in In re Pint-lar that “[t]he party asserting mootness has a heavy burden to establish that there is no effective relief remaining for a court to provide.” In re Pintlar, 124 F.3d at 1312 (emphasis added).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re LPM Corp.
In re Pintlar Corp., 124 F.3d 1310, 1313 (9th Cir.1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Continental Airlines
Jan. 30, 1997) (granting preliminary injunction to prevent board from advancing litigation expenses). 16 Compare In re Louisiana World Exposition, Inc., 832 F.2d 1391 , 1401 (5th Cir. 1987) (engaging in fact-specific analysis and finding that corporate debtor had no ownership interest in proceeds of D&O liability policy, which belonged to the D&Os) with Minoco Group of Companies, Ltd. v. First State Underwriters Agency (In re Minoco Group of Companies, Ltd.), 799 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1986) (Noting that "the estate is worth more with the policy than without the policy, "finding that D&O inde…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Continental Airlines, Inc.
Compare In re Louisiana World Exposition, Inc., 832 F.2d 1391 , 1401 (5th Cir.1987) (engaging in fact-specific analysis and finding that corporate debtor had no ownership interest in proceeds of D&O liability policy, which belonged to the D&Os) with Minoco Group of Companies, Ltd. v. First State Underwriters Agency (In re Minoco Group of Companies, Ltd.), 799 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir.1986) (Noting that “the estate is worth more with the policy than without the policy,” finding that D&O indemnity policy protected debtor against indemnity claims and was property of corporation's bankruptcy est…
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada, LLC
See In re Pintlar, 124 F.3d 1310 , 1314 (9th Cir.1997) ("In light of our conclusion that Minoco does not support the stay [since the policy in question involved only liability and not indemnity coverage], we need not consider whether we may or should adopt the reasoning of In re Louisiana World Exposition, Inc., 832 F.2d 1391 (5th Cir.1987) (distinguishing between a policy itself, which is unquestionably property of the estate, and its proceeds, which require fact-specific analysis).”) 36 .
cited
Cited "see"
GATX/Airlog Co. v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California
See In Re Pintlar Corp., 124 F.3d 1310 , 1312 (9th Cir.1997).
cited
Cited "see"
Gatx/Airlog Company v. United States District Court For The Northern District Of California
See In Re Pintlar Corp., 124 F.3d 1310 , 1312 (9th Cir. 1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Stevens v. The Regents of the University of Cal. CA6
DISCUSSION A. Mootness As an initial matter, we address respondents’ contention that appellants’ claims are moot because the adoption of the 2021 Plan means that “the 2005 [Plan] is no longer in effect, [and] the [Settlement Agreement] has expired by its own terms.” “An appeal is moot if it is impossible for an appellate court to grant an appellant any effectual relief.” (Association for a Cleaner Environment v. Yosemite Community College Dist. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 629, 641 .) But “[g]enerally, the burden is on the party claiming mootness to establish that an appeal is moot.”…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bohm v. Howard (In Re Howard)
No. 595, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 178, reprinted, in, 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5787, 5963, 6138); see also In re Pintlar Corp., 124 F.3d 1310, 1313 (9th Cir.1997) and In re MortgageAmerica Corp., 714 F.2d 1266, 1275 (5th Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Hoffpauir
See also, Pintlar v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York (In re Pintlar Corporation), 175 B.R. 379, 382 , 94 I.B.C.R. 245, 247 (Bankr.D.Idaho 1994), rev’d on other grounds, 124 F.3d 1310 (9th Cir.1997); In re Spaulding Composites Company, Inc., 207 B.R. 899, 906 (9th Cir. BAP 1997).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Chinyere JENKINS, Etc., Et Al., Appellants,
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Et Al., Appellees
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Et Al., Appellees
96-3870.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Sep 10, 1997.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Appellees’ suggestion for rehearing en banc has been considered by the court and is granted as to case No. 96-3870. The court’s opinion and judgment entered May 22, 1997, are vacated.
The case is set for oral argument at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 22, 1997, in the United States Courthouse in St. Paul, Minnesota.