green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
11.4 score
“section 109 is not characterized in terms of venue or jurisdiction by the statute itself, and it is clear that it is not jurisdictional”
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
General Lending Corp. v. Cancio
section 109 is not characterized in terms of venue or jurisdiction by the statute itself, and it is clear that it is not jurisdictional
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Jason Powell v. William Van Meter
We so held in Wenberg v. FDIC (In re Wenberg), 902 F.2d 768, 768 (9th Cir. 1990), when we expressly adopted the reasoning of the opinion of the BAP in that case, which had squarely held “that § 109 eligibility is not jurisdictional,” 94 B.R. 631, 637 (9th Cir. BAP 1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Duplessis v. Valenti (In Re Valenti)
Corp. v. Wenberg (In re Wenberg), 94 B.R. 631, 637 (9th Cir. BAP 1988), aff'd 902 F.2d 768 *148 (9th Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Stuart
Corp. (In re Wenberg), 902 F.2d 768, 768 (9th Cir.1990), aff'g 94 B.R. 631, 637 (9th Cir. BAP 1988) (holding that § 109 eligibility is not jurisdictional); Rudd v. Laughlin, 866 F.2d 1040, 1041-42 (8th Cir.1989) (holding that § 109 is not meant to restrict jurisdiction granted under title 28); Promenade Nat’l Bank v. Phillips (In re Phillips), 844 F.2d 230 , 235-36 n. 2 (5th Cir.1988) (“[Tissues pertaining to whether a debtor meets the requirements of § 109(g)(2) .... ‘are defenses not jurisdictional requirements.’ ” (quoting In re Johnson, 13 B.R. 342, 346 (Bankr.D.Minn.1981))); …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Dow Corning Corp.
In re Monaco, 36 B.R. 882 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1983), overruled by U.S. v. Verdunn, 89 F.3d 799, 802 (11th Cir.1996); and In re King, 9 B.R. 376, 378 (Bankr.D.Or.1981), overruled by Wenberg, supra note 8.
cited
Cited "see"
Mark M. Bello
See 902 F.2d 768 (9th Cir. 1990). 9 date of filing.’” Kwiatkowski, 486 B.R. at 415 (quoting Pearson, 773 F.2d at 758 ).
cited
Cited "see"
Guastella v. Hampton (In Re Guastella)
See FDIC v. Wenberg (In re Wenberg), 94 B.R. 631, 633 (9th Cir.BAP1988), aff'd, 902 F.2d 768 (9th Cir. 1990).
cited
Cited "see"
Moen v. Hull (In Re Hull)
See *731 FDIC v. Wenberg (In re Wenberg), 94 B.R. 631, 636 (9th Cir. BAP 1988), aff'd, 902 F.2d 768 (9th Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re: James P. Slack, Debtor. James P. Slack v. Wilshire Insurance Company
(2×)
See id.
discussed
Cited "see"
Nicholes v. Johnny Appleseed of Washington (In Re Nicholes)
See In re Wenberg, 94 B.R. 631, 636 (9th Cir. BAP 1988), aff'd, 902 F.2d 768 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that 11 U.S.C. § 109 (e) is not jurisdictional and debtors should be given the opportunity to convert their case).
examined
Cited "see"
Jones v. United States, Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (In Re Jones)
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See In re Wenberg, 94 B.R. at 636 (accepting this policy argument), off’ll, 902 F.2d 768 (9th Cir.1990); In re Tatsis, 72 B.R. at 911 (same).
cited
Cited "see"
Lucoski v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Lucoski)
See generally, In re Wenberg, 94 B.R. 631 (9th Cir. BAP 1988) Aff'd 902 F.2d 768 (9th Cir.1990); In re Martin, 78 B.R. 928 (S.D.Iowa 1987).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re: Patrick Joseph Gavin
See, e.g., Duplessis v. Valenti (In re Valenti), 310 B.R. 138 , 147– 48 (9th Cir. BAP 2004) (citing FDIC v. Wenberg (In re Wenberg), 94 B.R. 631, 637 (9th Cir. BAP 1988), aff'd, 902 F.2d 768 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also In re Bello, 609 B.R. 695 , 703 (Bankr.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re Cuyler WENBERG; Neta Wenberg, Debtors. Cuyler WENBERG; Neta Wenberg, Appellants,
v.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Acting as Receiver of Valencia Bank, Appellee
v.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Acting as Receiver of Valencia Bank, Appellee
89-55037.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
May 7, 1990.
William M. Burd, Burd and Marshack, Santa Ana, Cal., for appellants., Daniel Z. Zahner, Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., Newport Beach, Cal., for appellee.
Nelson, Norris, O'Scannlain.
Cited by 49 opinions | Published
Citer courts: S.D. Florida (1)
ORDER
This is an appeal from the decision of the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d).
On February 4, 1987, appellants Cuyler and Neta Wenberg filed a petition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in the Central District of California. Prior to that date, the Texas bankruptcy court had entered a judgment in favor of the FDIC and against Mr. Wenberg for damages in an amount to be ascertained and for “all costs and attorney’s fees.” The California bankruptcy court held that the award of attorney’s fees and costs was a liquidated debt for the purpose of determining debtor eligibility under 11 U.S.C. § 109(e). The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed. In re Wenberg, 94 B.R. 631 (Bankr. 9th Cir.1988). We AFFIRM for the reasons stated in the opinion of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.