Yadunath B. Badarayan v. Thomas Drake Clemson Univ., 25 F.3d 1038 (4th Cir. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Yadunath B. Badarayan v. Thomas Drake Clemson Univ., 25 F.3d 1038 (4th Cir. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“he analysis used to dispose of appellant's argument with respect to 365(c) applies with equal force to appellant's 365(e) argument.”
62 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 22 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In Re Footstar, Inc. (nysb, 2005-05-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) In Re Footstar, Inc.
Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 2005 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
he analysis used to dispose of appellant's argument with respect to 365(c) applies with equal force to appellant's 365(e) argument.
discussed Cited "see" Allentown Ambassadors, Inc. v. Northeast American Baseball, LLC (In Re Allentown Ambassadors, Inc.)
Bankr. E.D. Pa. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally In re Catron, 158 B.R. 629, 634 (E.D.Va.1993), aff'd mem., 25 F.3d 1038 (4th Cir.1994) (collecting cases supporting majority rule that *445 partnership agreements generally are deemed "executory contracts”); Thomas F. Blake-more, Limited Liability Companies and the Bankruptcy Code: A Technical Review, 13 Am.
cited Cited "see" Byrd v. Hopson
W.D.N.C. · 2003 · signal: accord · confidence high
Id.; accord, In re Broughton, 25 F.3d 1038 (table), 1994 WL 202288 , at *3 (4th Cir.1994).
cited Cited "see" Bernstein v. Donaldson (In Re Insulfoams, Inc.)
Bankr. W.D. Pa. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Catron, 158 B.R. 629, 633 (E.D.Va.1993), aff'd 25 F.3d 1038 (4th Cir.1994); In re Sal Caruso Cheese, Inc., 107 B.R. 808, 816-17 (Bankr.N.D.N.Y.1989).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Decheri Hafer v. Unknown
E.D. Cal. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence low
Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 1152, 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Failure to show 12 that a ‘nonfrivolous legal claim had been frustrated’ is fatal”). 13 Plaintiff fails to set forth sufficient allegations to support a claim regarding access to courts. 14 Should the plaintiff wish to pursue such a claim, she shall consider the above legal standards. 15 F. Bias 16 Plaintiff asserts that she filed a lawsuit against the Kern County District Attorney’s Office 17 around March 10, 2014 seeking $48,000,000, and claims several former members of that office are 18 now judicial officers on the Kern Count…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Stumpf v. McGee
5th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence low
Corp. v. Leroux, 69 F.3d 608 , 610 n. 3 (1st Cir.1995); see also Breeden v. Catron (In re Catron), 158 B.R. 624, 626 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1992) (holding partnership agreement is executory contract), aff'd, 158 B.R. 629 (E.D.Va.1993), aff'd, 25 F.3d 1038 (4th Cir.1994). .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Garrison-Ashburn L.C.
Bankr. E.D. Va. · 2000 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Breeden v. Catron (In re Catron), 158 B.R. 629 (E.D.Va.1993), aff'd, 25 F.3d 1038 (4th Cir.1994) (unpublished table decision); In re Antonelli, 148 B.R. 443 (D.Md.1992), aff'd, 4 F.3d 984 (4th Cir.1993) (unpublished table decision); JTB Enters., L.C. v. D & B Venture, L.C.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Grove Rich Realty Corp.
Bankr. E.D.N.Y. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also In re Catron, 158 B.R. 629, 636 (E.D.Va.1993), aff'd, 25 F.3d 1038 (Table, Text in WESTLAW), Unpub’d Disposition, 1994 WL 258400 (4th Cir.1994) (the District Court pronounced the two subsections to be irreconcilable) 1 ; In re Antonelli, 148 B.R. 443 (D.Md.1992), affld, 4 F.3d 984 (Table, Text in WESTLAW), Unpub’d Disposition, 1993 WL 321584 (4th Cir.1993); In re Magness, 972 F.2d 689 (6th Cir.1992).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Summit Investment and Development Corporation v. Edward G. Leroux, Jr., Summit Investment and Development Corporation v. Albert F. Curran, Sr.
1st Cir. · 1995 · signal: see also · confidence low
Oct. 20, 1994); see also In re Catron, *611 158 B.R. 629, 634 (E.D.Va.1993) (collecting cases supporting majority rule that partnership agreements generally are deemed "executory contracts" governed by Bankruptcy Code § 365), aff'd, 25 F.3d 1038 (4th Cir.1994). 4 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Yadunath B. Badarayan
v.
Thomas Drake Clemson University
93-2185.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jun 16, 1994.
25 F.3d 1038
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 66%
Citer courts: S.D. New York (1)

25 F.3d 1038
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Yadunath B. BADARAYAN, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
Thomas DRAKE; Clemson University, Defendants Appellees.

No. 93-2185.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 19, 1994.
Decided June 16, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-93-109-3AK).

Yadunath B. Badarayan, appellant pro se.

Floyd Matlock Elliott, Haynsworth, Marion, McKay & Guerard, Greenville, SC, for appellees.

D.S.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment[1] against Appellant in his diversity action. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court.[2] Badarayan v. Drake, No. CA-93-109-3AK (D.S.C. Aug. 11, 1993). To the extent that Appellant appeals the district court's failure to address his vaguely pled claim of discrimination by Appellees, we find that Appellant did not state a claim of sufficient specificity for the district court to address. See Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1088 (1986). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.[3]

2

AFFIRMED.

1

The motion was filed as a motion to dismiss but the district court advised Appellant that it would be treated as a motion for summary judgment

2

We note, however, that the district court held that the Appellant's cause of action accrued on January 15, 1990. The record reveals that the cause of action actually accrued substantially earlier. See Santee Portland Cement Co. v. Daniel Int'l Corp., 384 S.E.2d 693, 694 (S.C.1989); see also Nowlin v. General Tel. Co., 426 S.E.2d 114, 116 (S.C. Ct.App.1992). Because this determination does not affect the disposition of the case, we decline to disturb the district court's finding

3

Appellant's motion to expedite is now moot and is dismissed for that reason