In Re Theodore Steven Roosevelt, Debtor. Finalco, Inc. v. Theodore Steven Roosevelt, 98 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Theodore Steven Roosevelt, Debtor. Finalco, Inc. v. Theodore Steven Roosevelt, 98 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“gross abuse of discretion”
13 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States Trustee v. Jain (nmb, 2021-01-22)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) United States Trustee v. Jain
Bankr. D.N.M. · 2021 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
gross abuse of discretion
discussed Cited "see" In Re Theodore Steven Roosevelt
9th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Finalco, Inc. v. Roosevelt (In re Roosevelt), 87 F.3d 311 (9th Cir. 1996), as amended 98 F.3d 1169 , overruled on other grounds Murray v. Bammer (In re Bammer), 131 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). 5 The BAP interpreted Britt, as well as Maddox v. Robertson (Inre Prejean), 994 F.2d 706 (9th Cir. 1993), and Mayors v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 785 F.2d 757 (9th Cir. 1986), to stand for the proposition that a trustee may only avoid a transfer to the extent that "the value of the community property awarded to the non-operating spouse exceeds in value the property awarded to the oper…
discussed Cited "see" Roosevelt v. Ray ex rel. Roosevelt Trust (In re Roosevelt)
9th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Final-co, Inc. v. Roosevelt (In re Roosevelt), 87 F.3d 311 (9th Cir.1996), as amended 98 F.3d 1169 , overruled on other grounds Murray v. Bammer (In re Bammer), 131 F.3d 788 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc). .The BAP interpreted Britt , as well as Maddox v. Robertson (In re Prejean), 994 F.2d 706 (9th Cir.1993), and Mayors v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 785 F.2d 757 (9th Cir.1986), to stand for the proposition that a trustee may only avoid a transfer to the extent that "the value of the community property awarded to the non-operating spouse exceeds in value the property awarded to the operat…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Richard K. Latman Bettina L. Latman v. Virginia Burdette, Trustee, and Bankruptcy Appeals Clerk, Real-Party-In-Interest. Richard K. Latman Bettina L. Latman v. Virginia Burdette, Trustee, and Bankruptcy Appeals Clerk, Real-Party-In-Interest
9th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence low
No. 95-598 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5787, 5884 (noting that § 727(a)"centers on the debtor's wrongdoing in or in connection with the bankruptcy case"); see also In re Roosevelt, 87 F.3d 311 , 317 & n. 12, amended by 98 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir.1996) (stating the primary purpose of § 727(a) is punishment of a debtor who has committed wrongdoing in a bankruptcy case), overruled on other grounds by In re Bammer, 131 F.3d 788, 792 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc). 14 Here, the Trustee sought a denial of discharge based on the Trustee's view that the Latmans had made material false statements on …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Latman v. Burdette
9th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence low
No. 95-598 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5787, 5884 (noting that § 727(a)”centers on the debtor’s wrongdoing in or in connection with the bankruptcy case”); see also In re Roosevelt, 87 F.3d 311 , 317 & n. 12, amended by 98 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir.1996) (stating the primary purpose of § 727(a) is punishment of a debtor who has committed wrongdoing in a bankruptcy case), overruled on other grounds by In re Bammer, 131 F.3d 788, 792 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc).
cited Cited "see, e.g." In Re Steven Gregory Bammer, Debtor. James M. Murray v. Steven Gregory Bammer
9th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Finalco, Inc. v. Roosevelt (In re Roosevelt), 87 F.3d 311, 314 , as amended, 98 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir.1996); Friedkin v. Sternberg (In re Sternberg), 85 F.3d 1400, 1404-05 (9th Cir.1996).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re Theodore Steven ROOSEVELT, Debtor. FINALCO, INC., Appellant,
v.
Theodore Steven ROOSEVELT, Appellee
95-55160.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Oct 23, 1996.
98 F.3d 1169
96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7797
1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 27471
1996 WL 612668
Hall, O'Scannlain, Kleinfeld.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 68%
Citer courts: D. New Mexico (1)

The opinion filed on June 10,1996, appearing at 87 F.3d 311 (9th Cir.1996), is amended as follows:

Page 313, column one, penultimate line: delete “all of’; last line: delete “community” column two, paragraph 1, line 2: change “be” to “become”, delete “transmuted into” line 3: delete “Bankruptcy Appellate Panel” and insert “trial court” line 6: add a new sentence reading “Steven has not appealed that finding.”

Page 314, column one, footnote 3, lines 3 & 4: delete “community property” and insert “separate property of one spouse”; change “either” to “the other”; line 5: change “(a)” to “(c)” column two, line 16: change “community” to “separate” line 33: insert a period between “property” and the closing quotation mark; delete “or ‘community property.’ ”

Page 315, column two, line 1: change “denied” to “granted”

Page 318, column two, first paragraph, line 6: after “discharged.” insert “Steven’s argument neglects to mention, however, that this rule of construction is usually only applied in favor of honest debtors. See Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 286-87, 111 S.Ct. 654, 659-60, 112 L.Ed.2d 755 (1991). At the same time, it is not entirely clear how this general rule applies to a provision, like § 727(a)(2), that necessarily gives a fresh start to some dishonest debtors. As a result, the rule is of little help in construing this statute one way or the[*1170] other.” Then begin a new paragraph with “Stephen also points out....”

At the end of the new second paragraph, insert a new sentence: “We do not find this argument terribly persuasive.”

Page 318, column two, paragraph 2 (new paragraph 3) line 1: delete “While we are not terribly moved by Steven’s second argument” and insert “Nonetheless, as argued above”

Page 319, column one, paragraph 3, line 16: change “community” to “his separate”

With this amendment, the panel has voted to deny appellant’s petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed.R.App.P. 35.

The petition for rehearing is DENIED and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is REJECTED.