green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 5×
11.9 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1996 ·
…priority tax claimants, which receive preferential treatment under the code ..., are not an impaired class that can accept a plan and bind other truly impaired creditors to cramdown.
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1995 ·
…where legal claims are sufficiently different as to justify a difference in treatment under a reorganization plan, reasonable differences in treatment are permissible.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 31 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Curtis Center Ltd. Partnership
(2×)
priority tax claimants, which receive preferential treatment under the code ..., are not an impaired class that can accept a plan and bind other truly impaired creditors to cramdown.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Clancy v. Mobil Oil Corp.
jones act limits a seaman's recovery for injury to pecuniary losses and precludes recovery for nonpecuniary losses
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Sacred Heart Hospital of Norristown
(2×)
where legal claims are sufficiently different as to justify a difference in treatment under a reorganization plan, reasonable differences in treatment are permissible.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Union Meeting Partners
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
riority tax claimants, which receive preferential treatment under the code ..., are not an impaired class that can accept a plan and bind other truly impaired creditors to cram down.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re One Times Square Associates Ltd. Partnership
(2×)
in re bryson
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Strelecki v. Oklahoma Tax Commission
Berttucci Construction Co., Inc., 958 F.2d 127 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113, S. Ct. 190, 121 L.Ed.2d 134 (1992); Sterling v. Block, 953 F.2d 198 (5th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
JGB Industries, Inc. v. Simon-Telelect, Inc.
(2×)
See id. (citing In re Bryson Properties, XVIII, 961 F.2d 496, 499 (4th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 866 , 113 S.Ct. 191 , 121 L.Ed.2d 134 (1992)).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Remington Forest
(2×)
See In re Bryson Properties, XVIII, 961 F.2d 496, 503 (4th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 866 , 113 S.Ct. 191 , 121 L.Ed.2d 134 (1992); In re W.C.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Dunes Hotel Associates
(2×)
See In re Bryson Properties, XVIII, 961 F.2d 496, 503 (4th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 191 , 121 L.Ed.2d 134 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Allen v. Purkett
See Holt v. Caspari, 961 F.2d 1370, 1371 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 190 , 121 L.Ed.2d 134 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Allen v. Purkett
See Holt v. Caspari, 961 F.2d 1370, 1371 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 190 , 121 L.Ed.2d 134 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Boyd
See United States v. Tormos-Vega, 959 F.2d 1103, 1109 (1st Cir.) (claim that government withheld bank statements and other similar financial documents), ce rt. denied, — U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 191 , 121 L.Ed.2d 135 (1992); United States v. Ellender, 947 F.2d 748, 757 (5th Cir.1991) (claim that government "withheld defendant’s state prison record); United States v. Romo, 914 F.2d 889, 898-99 (7th Cir.1990) (claim the government withheld records maintained by local police), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1122 , 111 S.Ct. 1078 , 112 L.Ed.2d 1183 (1991); United States v. Williams, 902 F.2d 678, 682 (8th Cir…
examined
Cited "see"
In Re SM 104 Ltd.
(3×)
See In re Bryson Properties XVIII, 961 P.2d 496 , 502 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 191 , 121 L:Ed.2d 134 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Fisher
See United States v. Tormos-Vega, ___ _____________ ___________ 959 F.2d 1103, 1115 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 191 - _____ ______ 92 (1992); see also Hunter v. State of New Mexico, 916 F.2d ___ ____ ______ ____________________ 595, 598 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 1693 _____ ______ (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Fisher
See United States v. Tormos-Vega, 959 F.2d 1103, 1115 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 191 -92, 121 L.Ed.2d 135 (1992); see also *463 Hunter v. State of New Mexico, 916 F.2d 595, 598 (10th Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 1693 , 114 L.Ed.2d 87 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
FGH Realty Credit Corp. v. Newark Airport/Hotel Ltd. Partnership
(2×)
Co. v. Route 37 Business Park Assoc., 987 F.2d 154 (3d Cir.1993), the Third Circuit found impermissible — as have several other Cir *100 cuits — a classification scheme that separated the unsecured deficiency claim of an undersecured mortgagee from the claims of other unsecured creditors solely to effectuate a “cram down” confirmation. 4 Id.; see In re Bryson Properties, XVIII, 961 F.2d 496 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 191 , 121 L.Ed.2d 134 (1992); In re Greystone III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d 134, 138 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 72 , 121 L.Ed.2…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, Inc.
(2×)
See also In re Bryson Properties, XVIII, 961 F.2d 496, 501 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 866 , 113 S.Ct. 191 , 121 L.Ed.2d 134 (1992); In re Willows Convalescent Ctrs., L.P., 151 B.R. 220, 224 (D.Minn.1991); In re 499 W.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. John D. Rogers
Compare United States v. Stephens, 964 F.2d 424, 427 (5th Cir. 1992) (holding that an overt act is required) with United States v. Tormos-Vega, 959 F.2d 1103, 1115 (1st Cir.) (stating that no overt act is required), cer t. denied, 506 U.S. 866 , 113 S.Ct. 191 , 121 L.Ed.2d 135 (1992) and United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934, 983 (2d Cir. 1990) (same), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1211 , 111 S.Ct. 2811 , 115 L.Ed.2d 984 (1991), and cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1233 , 111 S.Ct. 2858 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wetzler v. Cantor
(2×)
See, e.g., In re Bryson Properties, XVIII, 961 F.2d 496, 499 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 866 , 113 S.Ct. 191 , 121 L.Ed.2d 134 (1992); In re Patch, 24 B.R. 563, 565 (D.Md.1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Matter of 183 Lorraine Street Associates
(2×)
The purpose of the requirement that a deficiency claim be classified with other unsecured claims is “to allow the undersecured creditor a right to potentially dominate the vote within the unsecured class.” 24 In re 500 Fifth Avenue Assoc., 148 B.R. 1010,1021 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 1993 WL 316183 (S.D.N.Y.1993). “[I]f claims could be arbitrarily placed in separate classes, it would almost always be possible for the [proponent of a plan] to manipulate ‘acceptance’ by artful classification.” In re Greystone III Joint Venture, 995 F.2d 1274, 1277 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ingebretsen on Behalf of Ingebretsen v. Jackson Public School Dist.
See, e.g., Society of Separationists v. Herman, 959 F.2d 1283 (5th Cir.) (en banc) (Higginbotham, J.), cert. denied 506 U.S. 866 , 113 S.Ct. 191 , 121 L.Ed.2d 135 (1992); National Treasury Employees Union v. Department of Treasury, 25 F.3d 237 , 240-41 (5th Cir.1994); Henschen v. City of Houston, 959 F.2d 584 (5th Cir.1992). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Perez-Garcia
“A variance occurs when the charging terms remain unchanged but when the facts proved at trial are different from those alleged in the indictment.” United States v. Fisher, 3 F.3d 456, 462 (1st Cir.1993); see also United States v. Tormos-Vega, 959 F.2d 1103, 1115 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, -, 113 S.Ct. 191 , 192, 121 L.Ed.2d 135 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Trevarrow Lanes, Inc.
(2×)
See, e.g., In re Bryson Properties, XVIII, 961 F.2d 496 , 504 n. 13 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 191 , 121 L.Ed.2d 134 (1992); Bjolmes Realty, 134 B.R. at 1005 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cotter v. Com.
Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 647-48 , 66 S.Ct. 1180, 1184 , 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946); see also Ascher v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 1105, 1128 , 408 S.E.2d 906, 920 (1991), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 190 , 121 L.Ed.2d 134 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Carlton
(2×)
Under the “fair and equitable” doctrine, the holder of a secured claim must receive “deferred cash payments totaling at least the allowed amount of such claim, of a value, as of the effective date of the plan, of at least the value of such holder’s interest in the estate’s interest in such property.” 11 U.S.C. § 1129 (b)(2)(A)(i)(II); See also Travelers Insurance Co. v. Bryson Properties, XVIII (In re Bryson Properties XVIII), 961 F.2d 496, 500 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 191 , 121 L.Ed.2d 134 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re James E. Johnston, Dba Johnston Enterprises, Debtor. Steelcase Inc. v. James E. Johnston and Unsecured Creditors' Committee
(2×)
See, e.g., In re Bryson Properties, XVIII, 961 F.2d 496, 503 (4th Cir.) (suggesting that senior class of unsecured creditors must be "paid in full” before junior classes can retain property under reorganization plan), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 191 , 121 L.Ed.2d 134 (1992); Kham & Nate’s Shoes No. 2 v. First Bank, 908 F.2d 1351, 1359-60 (7th Cir.1990) (describing absolute pri *331 ority rule as requiring that "every cent of each class comes ahead of the first dollar of any junior class” and class of unsecured creditors must be "paid in full" before any junior class); Justice v. Ca…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. David Milton Thomas, Lisa Reese, William Bide Shelton, and Terry Wayne Giddeons, United States of America v. Johnny Reese
Compare United States v. Tormos-Vega, 959 F.2d 1103, 1115 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 191 , 121 L.Ed.2d 135 (1992) (stating that no overt act is required) and United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934, 983 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 2811 , 115 L.Ed.2d 984 (1991) (same) with United States v. Stephens, 964 F.2d 424, 427 (5th Cir.1992) (holding that an overt act is required) and United States v. Benton, 852 F.2d 1456, 1465 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 993, 109 S.Ct. 555 , 102 L.Ed.2d 582 (1988) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Municipality v. Prudential
See also United States v. Tormos-Vega, 959 F.2d 1103 (1st ________ _____________ ___________ Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 191 (1992); FDIC v. CNA _____________ ____ ___ Casualty of Puerto Rico, 786 F. Supp. 1082 (D.P.R. 1991); ________________________ United States v. Serrano, 680 F. Supp. 58 (D.P.R. 1988), _____________ _______ modified, 870 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1989); FSLIC v. Shearson- ________ _____ _________ American Express, Inc., 658 F. Supp. 1331 (D.P.R. 1987); _______________________ United States v. Tormos-Vega, 656 F. Supp. 1525 (D.P.R. ______________ ___________ 1987), aff'd, United…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Shearson-American Express, Inc.
See also United States v. Tormos-Vega, 959 F.2d 1103 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 191 , 121 L.Ed.2d 135 (1992); FDIC v. CNA Casualty of Puerto Rico, 786 F.Supp. 1082 (D.P.R.1991); United States v. Serrano, 680 F.Supp. 58 (D.P.R.1988), modified, 870 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.1989); FSLIC v. Shearson-American Express, Inc., 658 F.Supp. 1331 (D.P.R.1987); United States v. Tormos-Vega, 656 F.Supp. 1525 (D.P.R.1987), aff'd, United States v. Boscio, 843 F.2d 1384 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 848 , 109 S.Ct. 129 , 102 L.Ed.2d 102 (1988); United States v. Serrano, 637 F.Supp. 12 (D.P.R.19…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Municipality v. Banco
See also United States v. Tormos-Vega, 959 F.2d 1103 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 191 (1992); FDIC v. CNA Casualty of Puerto Rico, 786 F. Supp. 1082 (D.P.R. 1991); United States v. Serrano, 680 F. Supp. 58 (D.P.R. 1988), modified, 870 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1989); FSLIC v. Shearson- American Express, Inc., 658 F. Supp. 1331 (D.P.R. 1987); United States v. Tormos-Vega, 656 F. Supp. 1525 (D.P.R. 1987), aff'd, United States v. Boscio, 843 F.2d 1384 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 848 (1988); United States v. Serrano, 637 F. Supp. 12 (D.P.R. 1985); United States v. Serrano, 622 F. Supp. 517 (…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Whittaker Memorial Hosp. Ass'n, Inc.
(2×)
Its purpose is to ensure “that a dissenting class of unsecured creditors must be provided for in full before any junior class can receive or retain any property [under a reorganization] plan.” Norwest Bank Worthington v. Ahlers, 485 U.S. 197, 202 , 108 S.Ct. 963, 966 , 99 L.Ed.2d 169 (1988), emphasis added, quoting Norwest Bank Worthington v. Ahlers, 794 F.2d 388 , 401 (8th Cir.1986); see also In re Bryson Properties XVIII, 961 F.2d 496, 503 (4th Cir.1992), cert. denied — U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 191 , 121 L.Ed.2d 134 (1992).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
BRYSON PROPERTIES, XVIII
v.
TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY
No. 92-108.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 5, 1992.
Cited by 124 opinions | Published
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Denied.