At page 305 Applying good faith purchaser requirement to statute4 citing casesby its own terms, the provision applies only where the buyer is a good faith purchaser
- In re Buerge, 479 B.R. 101 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2012).publishedId. at 305; 11 U.S.C.A. § 363 . .
- Off. Comm. of Unsecured Creditors v. W. United Life Assurance Co. (In re Tri-Valley Distrib., Inc.), 452 B.R. 837 (Bankr. D. Utah 2011).publishedSee § 549(c). 31 . 706 F.2d at 305. 32 .
- In re Tempo Tech. Corp., 202 B.R. 363 (D. Del. 1996).published (by its own terms, the provision applies only where the buyer is a good faith purchaser)
- Hoese Corp. v. Vetter Corp., 724 F.2d 52 (7th Cir. 1983).published See also In re Bel Air Associates, Ltd., 706 F.2d at 305; Greylock Glen Corp. v. Community Savings Bank, 656 F.2d at 4 .
At page 304 cited at this page1 citing case
- In re B-K of Kansas, Inc., 98 B.R. 549 (D. Kan. 1989).publishedSee, e.g., Ballou Construction Co., Inc. v. United States, 706 F.2d 301, 304-05 (10th Cir.1983); accord, In re Sewanee Land, Coal & Cattle, Inc., 735 F.2d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir.1984); In re Vetter Corp., 724 F.2d 52 , 55 (7th Cir.1983); In…
At page 306 cited at this page1 citing case
- Willemain v. Kivitz, 764 F.2d 1019 (4th Cir. 1985).publishedIn Re Vetter Corp., 724 F.2d 52 , 54-56 (7th Cir.1983); In Re Bel Air Associates, Ltd., 706 F.2d at 306; In Re National Homeowners Sales Service Corp., 554 F.2d 636 , 637 (4th Cir.1977) (per curiam).
Other citing cases
- Raskin Resources v. Malloy, No. 97-5217 (10th Cir. Feb. 25, 1999).unpublished
- William M. Stoddard v. Steven R. Bailey, 43 F.3d 1483 (10th Cir. 1994).published
- Egbert Dev., LLC v. Cmty. First Nat'l Bank (In re Egbert Dev., LLC), 219 B.R. 903 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 1998).published
- Mohawk Rubber Co. v. Otasco, Inc., 934 F.2d 326 (10th Cir. 1991).unpublished
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
In accordance with 10th Cir.R. 9(e) and Fed.R.App.P. 34(a), this appeal came on for consideration on the briefs and record on appeal.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, 526 F.Supp. 403, is vacated and the matter remanded for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Bliss Dairy, Inc.,-U.S.--, 103 S.Ct. 1134, 75 L.Ed.2d 130 (1983).
The mandate shall issue forthwith.