green
Positive treatment
Hot · 36 in 5y
Quoted verbatim 11×
91.0 score
G Cite
cited 5× by 3 distinct cases ·
…e decide cases before us based on our own examination of the issue, not on the views of other jurisdictions.
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Criticized
In re W.R. Grace & Co.
(4×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Grossman's, 607 F.3d at 121 ("We are persuaded that the widespread criticism of Frenville’s accrual test is justified, as it imposes too narrow an interpretation of a 'claim' under the Bankruptcy Code.
examined
Criticized
In Re Wr Grace & Co.
(6×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted), Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
we are persuaded that the widespread criticism of frenville's accrual test is justified, as it imposes too narrow an interpretation of a claim' under the bankruptcy code. accordingly, the frenville accrual test should be and now is overruled.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Energy Future Holdings Corp.
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
without notice of a bankruptcy claim, the claimant will not have a meaningful opportunity to protect his or her claim.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Paul Ruitenberg, III v.
(5×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
th issue has arisen starkly in the situation presented by persons with asbestos injuries that are not manifested until years or even decades after exposure.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Lefkowitz v. Michigan Trucking, LLC (In Re Gainey Corp.)
(2×)
whether a particular claim has been discharged by a plan of reorganization depends on factors applicable to the particular case and is best determined by the appropriate bankruptcy court or the district court.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
INTIMATECO, LLC v. APPAREL DISTRIBUTION INC.
(2×)
e decide cases before us based on our own examination of the issue, not on the views of other jurisdictions.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
INTIMATECO, LLC v. APPAREL DISTRIBUTION INC.
(2×)
e decide cases before us based on our own examination of the issue, not on the views of other jurisdictions.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
INTIMATECO, LLC v. APPAREL DISTRIBUTION INC.
e decide cases before us based on our own examination of the issue, not on the views of other jurisdictions.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Rental Car Intermediate Holdings, LLC
inadequate notice therefore 'precludes discharge of a claim in bankruptcy.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Mallinckrodt plc
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
a 'claim' arises when an individual is 18 d.i. 2159 at 11. 19 d.i. 3529. exposed pre-petition to a product or other conduct giving rise to an injury, which underlies a 'right to payment' under the bankruptcy code.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Gonzalez v. Corning
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
grossman's
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: Ben Nye Co., Inc.
(6×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Addressing when an asbestos claim exists for purposes of bankruptcy, the Third Circuit surveyed various approaches in In re Grossman's Inc., 607 F.3d at 121-25.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brick Law PLLC v. Sticky's Holdings LLC
Del. 2012). 75 In re New Century TRS Holdings 465 B.R. at 45 (citing In re Grossman’s, 607 F.3d at 127). arising prior to the Petition Date; and (iii) the deadline for filing a nondischargeability complaint.76 That notice also addressed the consequences for failure to file a proof of claim, stating, in part: If your claim is not scheduled77 or if your claim is designated as disputed, contingent, or unliquidated, you must file a proof of claim or you might not be paid on your claim . . . .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp Derivative Lit v.
JPMorgan Chase & Co. v. Dimon, 797 F.3d 229 , 235–36 (2d Cir. 2015)). 32 In re Grossman’s Inc., 607 F.3d 114 , 121 (3d Cir. 2010) (en banc). 33 Joyce v. Maersk Line Ltd., 876 F.3d 502, 508 (3d Cir. 2017) (en banc) (quoting Grossman’s, 607 F.3d at 121); see Riccio v. Sentry Credit, Inc., 954 F.3d 582, 592 (3d Cir. 2020) (en banc) (“[O]n rare occasions a circuit precedent, though not directly overruled or superseded, nonetheless might crumble if case law postdating the original decision, although not directly controlling, nevertheless offers a sound reason for believing that the former p…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
MCKINNEY v. BOSER
In re Grossmans, Inc., 607 F.3d 114, 125-26 (3d Cir. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC
This might constitute “expos[ure] prepetition to conduct giving rise to an injury, which underlies a right to payment under the Bankruptcy Code.” Jn re Grossman’s, 607 F.3d at 125 (3d Cir. 2010). 21 The Bankruptcy Court awarded prejudgment interest at a rate of 4% calculated from the SIPA Filing Date to the Trustee.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Mesabi Metallics Company LLC v. B. Riley FBR, Inc.
(3×)
Riley would have a strong 42 607 F.3d 114 (3d Cir. 2010) (en banc). 43 Id. at 125. 44 In re M.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Mallinckrodt plc
(3×)
It held that, for bankruptcy purposes, “a ‘claim’ arises when an individual is exposed pre-petition to a product or other conduct giving rise to an injury … [that] underlies a ‘right to payment.’” Id. at 125.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the Liquidation of B v. Ken-Wen Family Limited Partnership
Id. at 117.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
John Sweeney v. Alcon Laboratories
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Rather, as we stated in Grossman’s, “[w]hether a particular claim has been discharged by a plan of reorganization depends on factors applicable to the particular case and is best determined by the appropriate bankruptcy court or the district court.”6 607 F.3d at 127.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Johns-Manville Corporation
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
No. 14) at 78-79) In support of this proposition, Appellant cites Grossman’s, which held that [w]hether a particular claim has been discharged by a plan of reorganization depends on factors applicable to the particular case and is best determined by the appropriate bankruptcy court or the district court.” Grossman’s, 607 F.3d at 127.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
L.K. Comstock & Company, Inc. v. Reibie
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Grossman’s, 607 F.3d at 125.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc.
Grossman’s, 607 F.3d at 120-21 (determining that a “claim” arises when an individual is exposed pre-petition to a product or other conduct giving rise to an injury, which underlies a “right to payment” under the Bankruptcy Code).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
SWEENEY v. LAFAYETTE PHARMACEUTICALS, INCORPORATED
This is especially true because the Grossman factors are ones that the court “may wish to consider.” In re Grossman’s, 607 F.3d at 127. 7 The Court notes that Mr. Sweeney began experiencing medical issues as early as 2009 (FAC ¶ 18), but Plaintiffs contend that they were not aware of the cause of those issues until much later.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
L.K. Comstock & Company, Inc. v. Reibie
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Grossman’s, 607 F.3d at 125.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Energy Future Holdings v.
(5×)
also: Cited "see"
In that case, we convened en banc to consider whether a person whose 7 “underlying asbestos exposure occurred pre-petition but [whose] injury manifested itself post-petition” had a “claim” for bankruptcy purposes. 607 F.3d at 117.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United Artists Theater etc. v. Cal. Regional Wat. Quality etc.
Discharge of such claims without providing adequate notice raises questions under the Fourteenth Amendment.” (In re Grossman’s Inc., supra, 607 F.3d at p. 122; see also In re Savage Industries, Inc. (1st Cir. 1994) 43 F.3d 714 , 720–721; In re Hexcel Corp. (N.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United Artists Theater etc. v. Regional Wat. Quality Control etc.11/27/19 CA1/5 Case Details
Discharge of such claims without providing adequate notice raises questions under the Fourteenth Amendment.” (In re Grossman’s Inc., supra, 607 F.3d at p. 122; see also In re Savage Industries, Inc. (1st Cir. 1994) 43 F.3d 714 , 720–721; In re Hexcel Corp. (N.D.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Carlos Bastardo-Vale v. Attorney General United States
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
While we generally “decide cases before us based on our own examination of the issue, not on the views of other jurisdictions,” these more recent decisions suggest that we should “consider whether the reasoning applied by our colleagues elsewhere is persuasive.” Id. at 121; Joyce v. Maersk Line Ltd, 876 F.3d 502, 512 (3d Cir. 2017) (en banc) (“[W]hen our Court is in disagreement with every other circuit to consider a question, it can be wise to reconsider our prior reasoning.”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
W. Salem Storage, LLC v. Exide Techs. (In re Technologies)
Grossman's, 607 F.3d at 125 (emphasis added), Wright clarified that a claim arises if an individual is exposed pre-confirmation to the product or conduct giving rise to the injury.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In re GEO Specialty Chemicals Ltd.
(7×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Grossman’s, 607 F.3d at 125.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
James Joyce v. Maersk Line Ltd
(2×)
In general, “we decide cases before us based on our own examination of the issue, not on the views of other jurisdictions.” In re Grossman’s, 607 F.3d at 121.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Hardegger v. Clark
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Frenville has since been overruled by the Third Circuit, see id. at 121, and no court now appears to follow the Frenville approach, see In re Andrews, 239 F.3d 708 , 710 n.7 (5th Cir. 2001) (describing Frenville’s approach as having been “universally rejected”). ¶ 20 Under the “conduct test,” a claim arises at the time of the debtor’s conduct that gives rise to the claim, even if the actual injury or accrual of a cause of action does not occur until after the bankruptcy filing.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mandelbrot v. J.T. Thorpe Settlement Trust (In Re J.T. Thorpe, Inc.)
(2×)
Many of the requirements in § 524(g) are specifically tailored to protect the due process rights of future claimants.” Jeld-Wen, 607 F.3d at 127 (internal modifications and quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Bates
“Under this test, a claim arises from a debtor’s pre-petition tortious conduct where there is also some pre-petition relationship between the debtor and the claimant, such as a purchase, use, opera tion of, or exposure to the debtor’s product.” JELD-WEN, Inc. v. Van Brunt (In re Grossman's Inc.), 607 F.3d 114, 123 (3d Cir. 2010) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re G-I Holdings, Inc.
Frenville Co., Inc., 744 F.2d 332 (3d Cir. 1984), finding that it imposed “too narrow an interpretation of a ‘claim’ under the Bankruptcy Code” and holding that “a ‘clairp’ arises when an individual is exposed pré-petition to a product or other conduct giving rise to an injury, which underlies a ‘right to payment’ under the Bankruptcy Code.” Grossman’s, 607 F.3d at 121, 125 (citing 11 U.S.C. § 101 (5)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Kimball Hill, Inc.
While the precise ruling of Frenville was not directed at surety law and was later retracted by the Third Circuit en banc, Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Van Brundt (In re Grossman’s Inc.), 607 F.3d 114, 121 (3d Cir. 2010), this part of the court’s analysis remained undisturbed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Orleans Homebuilders, Inc.
Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Van Brunt (In re Grossman’s, Inc.), 607 F.3d 114, 125 (3d Cir. 2010). .
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Cunningham v. Energy Future Holdings Corp. (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.)
(5×)
Id. at 119-20.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re W.R. Grace & Co.
Frenville Co., Inc.), 744 F.2d 332, 337 (3d Cir.1984) (holding that a claim does not arise until a right to payment arises under state law), overruled by Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Van Brunt (In re Grossman’s Inc.), 607 F.3d 114, 125 (3d Cir.2010) (holding that a claim arises when an individual is exposed pre-petition to a product or other conduct giving rise to an injury, which underlies a “right to payment,”); see also Wright v. Owens Corning, 679 F.3d 101, 109 (3d Cir.2012) (expanding Grossman’s determination of when a claim arises to include “post-petition, pre-confirmation exposure to a …
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Johns-Manville Corp.
(7×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
In determining whether a claim exists for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code, it has been said that “a ‘claim’ can exist under the Code before a right to payment exists under state law.” JELD-WEN, Inc. v. Van Brunt (In re Grossman’s Inc.), 607 F.3d 114, 121 (3d Cir.2010).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Delaware Trust Co. v. Computershare Trust Co. (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.)
In re Rodriguez, 629 F.3d 136, 142 (3d Cir.2010) (citing Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Brunt (In re Grossman's Inc.), 607 F.3d 114, 121 (3d Cir.2010)). .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sikirica v. Harber (In re Harber)
Id. at 125. .Pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code, the term "claim” means "[a] right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured ...” 11 U.S.C, § 101(5). .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Gonzalez
Communic'ns, 537 U.S. 293, 302 , 123 S.Ct. 832 , 154 L.Ed.2d 863 (2003); In re Grossman’s Inc., 607 F.3d 114, 121 (3d Cir.2010). .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Pittman
In re Rodriguez, 629 F.3d 136, 138-39 (3d Cir.2010) (quoting In re Grossman’s, 607 F.3d at 121).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dold v. Rainbows United, Inc. (In re Rainbows United, Inc.)
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Watson v. Parker (In re Parker), 264 B.R. 685 (10th Cir. BAP 2001), aff'd 313 F.3d 1267 (10th Cir.2002), cert. denied 540 U.S. 965 , 124 S.Ct. 429 , 157 L.Ed.2d 309 (2003); Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Brunt (In re Grossman’s Inc.), 607 F.3d 114, 125 (3d Cir.2010); Grady v. A.H.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Trevino v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. (In re Trevino)
Due to the accrual’s approach inequitable results with regards to indemnification claims, it has been ‘universally rejected.’ 16 (Grossman’s Inc. v. Van Brunt (In re Grossman’s Inc.), 607 F.3d 114, 120 (3d Cir.2010) (overturning Frenville).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Moore v. Lalone (In re Moore)
Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Van Brunt (In re Grossman’s Inc.), 607 F.3d 114, 122 (3d Cir. 2010).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re Grossman's Inc.
09-1563.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Apr 27, 2010.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 09-1563
In re: Grossman's Inc., et al., Debtors
JELD-WEN, Inc., f/k/a Grossman's Inc., Appellant v. Gordon Van Brunt, Individually and in his capacity as Personal Representative of the Estate of Mary Van Brunt*
*Amended pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 43
(D. Del. Civil Action No. 08-cv-00427)
Present: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, SLOVITER, McKEE, BARRY, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN, HARDIMAN, GREENAWAY and ROTH, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
The Court, sua sponte, orders rehearing en banc in the above captioned appeal.
The matter will be submitted at the convenience of the Court.
BY THE COURT, /s/ Anthony J. Scirica Chief Judge
Date: April 27, 2010 cc: Christopher M. Alston Esq. Daniel K. Hogan Esq. David J. Parsons Esq. Frederick B. Rosner Esq. Sander L. Esserman, Esq