In Re Munson Geothermal Inc., Debtor. Stephen M. Munson v. Jeffrey E. Antisdel Hot Springs Power Co. Ralph Cromer, Tr., 982 F.2d 360 (9th Cir. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Munson Geothermal Inc., Debtor. Stephen M. Munson v. Jeffrey E. Antisdel Hot Springs Power Co. Ralph Cromer, Tr., 982 F.2d 360 (9th Cir. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Systems Division Inc. v. Teknek LLC (cafc, 2008-10-29) · Strongest negative: In Re Strawberry Square Associates (nyeb, 1993-03-30)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "but see" In Re Strawberry Square Associates
Bankr. E.D.N.Y. · 1993 · signal: but cf. · confidence high
But cf. In re Munson Geothermal, Inc., 982 F.2d 360 (9th Cir.1992) (dis *702 missing appeal of order of confirmation as moot after plan modified and appeal on modified plan decided by another court).
discussed Cited "see" Systems Division Inc. v. Teknek LLC
Fed. Cir. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Nasatka, 58 F.3d at 1582 (“By seeking to litigate to its appellate conclusion an obviously moot issue, Nasatka has clearly argued a frivolous appeal.” (citing Munson v. Antisdel, 982 F.2d 360, 361 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissing appeal as moot and sanctioning appellant’s attorney under Fed.
cited Cited "see" Ralph G. Nasatka v. Delta Scientific Corporation
Fed. Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Munson v. Antisdel, 982 F.2d 360, 361 (9th Cir.1992) (dismissing appeal as moot and sanctioning appellant’s attorney under Fed.R.App.P. 38).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re MUNSON GEOTHERMAL INC., Debtor. Stephen M. MUNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Jeffrey E. ANTISDEL; Hot Springs Power Company; Ralph Cromer, Trustee, Defendants-Appellees
91-16373.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Dec 22, 1992.
982 F.2d 360
Alan R. Smith, Smith & Corder, Reno, NV, for plaintiff-appellant., Richard F. Holley, Jones, Jones, Close & Brown, Reno, NV, for defendants-appel-lees.
Boochever, Noonan, O'Scannlain.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

ORDER

The case is dismissed as moot. The confirmed plan of reorganization which is the subject of this appeal is no longer in effect due to subsequent confirmation of a modified plan. This court can have no effect upon the rights of the parties because all reorganization efforts occur under the modified plan. The modified plan was the subject of a separate appeal which has been decided by another court. Because the result of the present appeal was obvious, the appeal is frivolous. See Mackey v. Pioneer Nat’l Bank, 867 F.2d 520, 527 (9th Cir.1989). Faced with a frivolous appeal, this court has the discretion to impose sanctions against the offending party. FRAP 38. The appellees are awarded costs plus attorneys fees on this appeal in the amount of $3,000, jointly and severally, against the appellant and his counsel Alan Smith, as just damages.