green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
7.1 score
“sjubsections 365(c) and (e) contemplate a case-by-case inquiry into whether the nondebtor par 790 ty.. .actually was being 'forced to accept performance under its executory contract from someone other than the debtor party with whom it originally contracted.”
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Cinicola v. Scharffenberger
See In re Catapult Entm’t, Inc., 165 F.3d 747 , 749-50 (9th Cir.) (adopting "hypothetical test”), cert. dismissed, 528 U.S. 924 , 120 S.Ct. 369 , 145 L.Ed.2d 248 (1999); In re Catron, 158 B.R. 629, 638 (E.D.Va.1993) (same), aff'd without opinion, 25 F.3d 1038 (4th Cir.1994); but see Institut Pasteur v. Cambridge Biotech Corp., 104 F.3d 489, 493-94 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1120 , 117 S.Ct. 2511 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1014 (1997); In re Cajun Elec.
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. TechDyn Systems Corp. (In Re TechDyn Systems Corp.)
In re Catron, 158 B.R. 629, 633 (E.D.Va.1993), aff'd 25 F.3d 1038 (4th Cir.1994) (unpublished op.); In re Catapult Entertainment, Inc., 165 F.3d 747 , 750 (9th Cir.1999); In re West Electronics, Inc. 852 F.2d 79, 83 (3d Cir.1988); In re James Cable Partners, 27 F.3d 534, 537 (11th Cir.1994) (describing § 365(c) as presenting a hypothetical question); but see Institut Pasteur v. Cambridge Biotech Corp., 104 F.3d 489, 493 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1120 , 117 S.Ct. 2511 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1014 (1997).
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Footstar, Inc.
sjubsections 365(c) and (e) contemplate a case-by-case inquiry into whether the nondebtor par 790 ty.. .actually was being 'forced to accept performance under its executory contract from someone other than the debtor party with whom it originally contracted.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Adler
A fiduciary who '[pretends] loyalty to the principal while secretly converting the principal’s information for personal gain' ... defrauds the principal.” O'Hagan, -U.S. at-, 117 S.Ct. at 2208 (emphasis added). 23 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Eagleview Technologies, Inc. v. Mds Associates
See Isenbergh v. Knight- Ridder Newspaper Sales, Inc., 84 F.3d 1380, 1383 (11th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 2511 (1997). 8 Eagleview's case asserts that MDS violated sections 201(a) and 202(a) of the Act, two sections that regulate the activities of common carriers.
cited
Cited "see"
Eagleview Technologies, Inc. v. MDS Associates
See Isenbergh v. Knight-Ridder Newspaper Sales, Inc., 84 F.3d 1380, 1383 (11th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1119 , 117 S.Ct. 2511 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1014 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
Perlman v. Catapult Entertainment, Inc. (In re Catapult Entertainment, Inc.)
See Institut Pasteur v. Cambridge Biotech Corp., 104 F.3d 489, 493 (1st Cir.) (rejecting the hypothetical test in favor of the actual test), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 2511 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1014 (1997). 2 Although we have on two occasions declined to choose between these competing visions, see Worthington v. General Motors Corp. (In re Claremont Acquisition Corp.), 113 F.3d 1029, 1032 (9th Cir.1997); Everex, 89 F.3d at 676-77 , today we hold that we are bound by the plain terms of the statute and join the Third and Eleventh Circuits in adopting the “hypothetical test.” III.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Catapult Entertainment, Inc., a California Corporation, AKA Storm Systems, Debtor. Stephen Perlman v. Catapult Entertainment, Inc., a California Corporation, AKA Storm Systems
See Institut Pasteur v. Cambridge Biotech Corp., 104 F.3d 489, 493 (1st Cir.) (rejecting the hypothetical test in favor of the actual test), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1120 , 117 S.Ct. 2511 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1014 (1997). 2 Although we have on two occasions declined to choose between these competing visions, see Worthington v. General Motors Corp. (In re Claremont Acquisition Corp.), 113 F.3d 1029, 1032 (9th Cir.1997); Everex, 89 F.3d at 676-77, today we hold that we are bound by the plain terms of the statute and join the Third and Eleventh Circuits in adopting the "hypothetical test." III. 11 We begi…
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re El Paso Refinery, L.P.
See Institut Pasteur v. Cambridge Biotech Corp., 104 F.3d 489 (1st Cir.1997) cert. denied, _ U.S. _, 117 S.Ct. 2511 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1014 (1997); In re Hartec Enters., Inc., 117 B.R. 865 (Bankr.W.D.Tex.1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hicks, Muse & Co. v. Brandt
See Institut Pasteur v. ___ _________________ Cambridge Biotech Corp. (In re Cambridge Biotech Corp.), 104 F.3d _______________________ _____________________________ 489, 492 n.5 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 2511 (1997); _____ ______ Rochman v. Northeast Utils.
discussed
Cited "see"
Hicks, Muse & Co. v. Brandt
See Institui Pasteur v. Cambridge Biotech Corp. (In re Cambridge Biotech Corp.), 104 F.3d 489 , 492 n. 5 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, —U.S.-, 117 S.Ct. 2511 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1014 (1997); Rochman v. Northeast Utils.
cited
Cited "see"
Harter v. Vernon
See Harter v. Vernon, 953 F.Supp. 685 (M.D.N.C.), affd, 101 F.3d 334 (4th Cir.1996), cert, denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 2511 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1014 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
Noonan v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
See Institut Pasteur v. Cambridge Biotech Corp., 104 F.3d 489, 492 (1st Cir.) ("appellate court may bypass jurisdictional questions where appeal would falter on merits even assuming jurisdiction”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 2511 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1014 (1997). 8 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Rogers v. Management Technology, Inc.
See Institut Pasteur v. Cambridge Biotech Corp., 104 F.3d 489 , 493 n. 8 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 2511 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1014 (1997); Williams v. Ashland Engineering Co., Inc., 45 F.3d 588, 592 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 51 , 133 L.Ed.2d 16 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Davidson v. Quorum Health Group, Inc.
See Isenbergh v. Knight-Ridder Newspaper Sales, Inc., 97 F.3d 436, 439 (11th Cir.1996), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 2511 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1014 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lloyd D. Alkire v. Judge Jane Irving
Compare Harter v. Vernon, 101 F.3d 334 , 338 n. 1 (4th Cir.1996) (“If an official or entity is not immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment that official or entity is a 'person' subject to suit under § 1983.”), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1120 , 117 S.Ct. 2511 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1014 (1997), with Indep.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Stephenson v. Bartlett
Co. v. Board of Comm'rs of Weld Cty., 247 U.S. 282, 287 , 38 S.Ct. 510, 512 , 62 L.Ed. 1110, 1117 (1918); see also Harter v. Vernon, 101 F.3d 334, 342 (4th Cir.1996) ("Our holdings on questions of state law do not bind state courts"), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1120 , 117 S.Ct. 2511 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1014 (1997); Preston, 325 N.C. at 449-50 , 385 S.E.2d at 479 ; White v. Pate, 308 N.C. 759, 766 , 304 S.E.2d 199, 203 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rice v. National Security Council
See also Harter v. Vernon, 101 F.3d 334 , 338-339 (4th Cir.1996), cert. denied, Vernon v. Harter, 521 U.S. 1120 , 117 S.Ct. 2511 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1014 (1997); and Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 , 104 S.Ct. 900 , 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984)(although express language of Eleventh Amendment only forbids suits by citizens of other States against a State, Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a State filed by its own citizens).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Shamrock Coal Co., Inc. v. Maricle
(2×)
See also, Mullins v. Manning Coal Corporation, Ky., 938 S.W.2d 260 (1997), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1119 , 117 S.Ct. 2511 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1014 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Duke v. Grady Municipal Schools
See, e.g., Harter v. Vernon, 101 F.3d 334, 339-40 (4th Cir.1996) (holding that if the court finds the state treasury will pay the judgment, the entity is immune, but if it finds the treasury will not, then other factors should be considered), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 2511 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1014 (1997); Mancuso v. New York State Thruway Auth., 86 F.3d 289 , 293 (2d Cir.) (applying *975 six factor test, and concluding that "[o]nly if those factors point in different directions” does the court consider whether the state’s integrity or treasury are affected), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 117 S…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
INSTITUT PASTEUR and Pasteur Sanofi Diagnostics
v.
CAMBRIDGE BIOTECH CORPORATION
v.
CAMBRIDGE BIOTECH CORPORATION
No. 96-1698.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 27, 1997.
117 S. Ct. 2511
Published
Citer courts: S.D. New York (1)
Case below, 104 F.3d 489.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.