How cited: Vass v. Conron Bros. Co. · Go Syfert

Vass v. Conron Bros. Co. (1932)

green · 121 citation events across 40 courts. Showing the 48 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1933 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
193319792026
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir. · 3 citations in this opinion
Co., 59 F.2d 969, 970-71 (2d Cir.1932) (L.Hand, J.).
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
Co., 59 F.2d 969, 970 (2d Cir. 1932) (L.
L. Hand, J.
Rule Authority · 5th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
In re VistaCare Grp., 678 F.3d at 222 (plaintiff sought leave to proceed in state court); McDaniel, 668 F.3d at 155 (plaintiff filed suit in state court); In re Crown Vantage, 421 F.3d at 969 (same); In re Linton, 136 F.3d at 544 (same); In re Lehal Realty, 101 F.3d at 274 (same); In re DeLorean Motor, 991 F.2d at 1238 (same); Vass, 59 F.2d at 970 (Hand, J.) (same). 16 .
Hand, J.
green Carroll v. Abide (2015)
Rule Authority · 5th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
In re VistaCare Grp., 678 F.3d at 222 (plaintiff sought leave to proceed in state court); McDaniel, 668 F.3d at 155 (plaintiff filed suit in state court); In re Crown Vantage, 421 F.3d at 969 (same); In re Linton, 136 F.3d at 544 (same); In re Lehal Realty, 101 F.3d at 274 (same); In re DeLorean Motor, 991 F.2d at 1238 (same); Vass, 59 F.2d at 970 (Hand, J.) (same). .
Hand, J.
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
Co., 59 F.2d 969, 971 (2 Cir. 1932). 34 WILLIAM F. SMITH and SEITZ, Circuit Judges, concur in this dissent.
Rule Authority · 7th Cir.
Co., 59 F.2d 969, 971 (2d Cir.1932) (Hand, J).
green Muratore v. Darr (2004)
Rule Authority · 1st Cir.
Go., 59 F.2d 969, 971 (2d Cir.1932).
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Co., 59 F.2d 969, 970 (2d Cir.1932) (holding that a bankruptcy trustee, like a receiver, is an officer of the court, and trustee's possession is protected because it is the court's); In re Kashani, 190 B.R. 875, 885 (B.A.P. 9th Cir.1995) (noting that the granting of leave for a party to sue the trustee is within the sound discretion of the appointing court).
green Curry v. Castillo (2002)
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Co., 59 F.2d 969, 970 (2d Cir.1932) (holding that a bankruptcy trustee, like a receiver, is an officer of the court, and trustee’s possession is protected because it is the court’s); In re Kashani, 190 B.R. 875, 885 (B.A.P. 9th Cir.1995) (noting that the granting of leave for a party to sue the trustee is within the sound discretion of the appointing court).
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Co., 59 F.2d 969, 970 (2d Cir.1932); Kashani v. Fulton (In re Kashani), 190 B.R. 875, 885 (9th Cir.BAP 1995).
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Co., 59 F.2d 969, 970 (2d Cir. 1932); Kashani v. Fulton (In re Kashani), 190 B.R. 875, 885 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1995). 4 In this case, Defendants other than Rodgers were not court “appointed,” but rather court “approved.” We find this distinction irrelevant, and hold that these court approved officers functioned as the equivalent of court appointed officers for purposes of the Barton doctrine.
green LeBlanc v. Salem (1999)
Rule Authority · 1st Cir.
Co., 59 F.2d 969, 970 (2d Cir.1932) (L.
green LeBlanc v. Salem (1999)
Rule Authority · 1st Cir.
Co., 59 F.2d 969, 970 (2d Cir. 1932) (L.
L. Hand, J.
Rule Authority · 1st Cir.
Co., 59 F.2d 969, 970 (2d Cir.1932) (bankruptcy court may enjoin action in state court against receiver in bankruptcy where not commenced with leave of the appointing court); In re: Campbell, 13 B.R. 974 , 976 (D.Idaho 1981) (permission of the bankruptcy court is a prerequisite for state-court action against trustee in bankruptcy for acts done within his authority as trustee).
Rule Authority · 1st Cir.
Co., 59 F.2d 969, 970 (2d Cir.1932) (bankruptcy court may enjoin action in state court against receiver in bankruptcy where not commenced with leave of the appointing court); In re: Campbell, 13 B.R. 974 , 976 (D.Idaho 1981) (permission of the bankruptcy court is a prerequisite for state-court action against trustee in bankruptcy for acts done within his authority as trustee).
Rule Authority · 1st Cir.
Co., 59 F.2d 969, 970 (2d ____ _________________ Cir. 1932)(bankruptcy court may enjoin action in state court against receiver in bankruptcy where not commenced with leave of the appointing court); In re: Campbell, 13 B.R. 974 , 976 _________________ (D.Idaho 1981)(permission of the bankruptcy court is a prerequisite for state-court action against trustee in bankruptcy for acts done within his authority as trustee).
bankruptcy court may enjoin action in state court against receiver in bankruptcy where not commenced with leave of the appointing court
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Co., 59 F.2d 969, 971 (2d Cir.1932).
Rule Authority · Wis. · 4 citations in this opinion
Co., 59 F.2d 969, 970 (2d Cir. 1932), applied the Barton doctrine to trustees in bankruptcy.
Rule Authority · Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 2 citations in this opinion
Co., 59 F.2d 969, 970 (2d Cir. 1932).
Rule Authority · S.D. Miss.
Co., 59 F.2d 969, 970 (2d Cir.1932); Kashani v. Fulton (In re Kashani ), 190 B.R. 875, 885 (9th Cir.BAP 1995). ‘An unbroken line of cases ... has imposed [this] requirement as a matter of federal common law.’ Linton, 136 F.3d at 545 .
Rule Authority · S.D. Miss.
Co., 59 F.2d 969, 970 (2d Cir.1932); Kashani v. Fulton (In re Kashani ), 190 B.R. 875, 885 (9th Cir.BAP 1995). ‘An unbroken line of cases ... has imposed [this] requirement as a matter of federal 3 Davis v. Bayless cites the following cases as support - New Alaska Dev.
Quote Authority · Bankr. N.D.N.Y.
Co., 59 F.2d 969, 971 (2d Cir. 1932) (“[A]n action against a trustee in bankruptcy for transactions of his own, must be brought in the bankruptcy court, unless it gives leave to liquidate elsewhere.”).
“[A]n action against a trustee in bankruptcy for transactions of his own, must be brought in the bankruptcy court, unless it gives leave to liquidate elsewhere.”
green Siomkos v. Beckerman (2025)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Co., 59 F.2d 969, 971 (2d Cir. 1932) (L.
L. Hand, J.
Rule Authority · Wash. Ct. App.
Co., 59 F.2d 969, 970 (2d Cir. 1932) (holding that a bankruptcy trustee, like a receiver, is an officer of the court, and trustee’s possession is protected because it is the court’s).
holding that a bankruptcy trustee, like a receiver, is an officer of the court, and trustee’s possession is protected because it is the court’s
Rule Authority · Bankr. E.D.N.Y.
Co., 59 F.2d 969, 970 (2d Cir.1932) (“trustees in bankruptcy ... may be sued by their title, and judgments against [trustees] bind the [estate] assets.”); see also Rogers v. Ackley Commc’ns, Enters., Inc., No. 1996-13M, 1996 WL 493174 , at *1 (D.V.I.
Rule Authority · Bankr. M.D. Penn.
Co., 59 F.2d 969, 970 (2d Cir.1932); Kashani v. Fulton (In re Kashani), 190 B.R. 875, 885 (9th Cir. BAP 1995).
green In re Old Carco LLC (2010)
Rule Authority · Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
Co., 59 F.2d 969, 971 (2d Cir.1932)).
green In Re Old Carco LLC (2010)
Rule Authority · Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
Co., 59 F.2d 969, 971 (2d Cir.1932)).
Rule Authority · Bankr. N.D. Ill.
Co., 59 F.2d 969, 970 (2d Cir.1932); In re Johnson, 518 F.2d 246, 251 n. 5 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 893 , 96 S.Ct. 191 , 46 L.Ed.2d 125 (1975).
Rule Authority · Bankr. E.D. Tenn.
Co., 59 F.2d 969, 971 (2d Cir.1932) (suit by lessee of cold storage space against trustee for failure to properly refrigerate premises not within statute where trustee not carrying on business) (“[mjerely to hold matters in statu quo ... to do only what is necessary to hold the assets intact ... [does] not seem to us to be a continuance of the business”) (L.
Rule Authority · Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
Id. at 971 (emphasis added).
emphasis added
Rule Authority · Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
Co., 59 F.2d 969, 970 (2d Cir.1932) (“Under the law of New York no action may be maintained against a trustee as such, any more than against a director, a freight agent, a lawyer, or a jockey, as such; the law of that state does not apparently recognize multiple personalties.”) (L.
green Cook v. Holland (1978)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
Co., 59 F.2d 969, 970 (2d Cir. 1932) (L.
L. Hand, J.
Rule Authority · E.D. Ky.
Co., 2d Cir., 59 F.2d 969, 971 (1932).
Rule Authority · E.D. Pa.
Other Cases Relied On By Petitioner Petitioner places heavy reliance on a statement by Judge Learned Hand in Vass v. Conron, 59 F.2d 969, at 971 (2nd Cir. 1932). 2 In that case, a state court action against a receiver and trustee was enjoined as being in an improper forum.
green In re Hacker (1963)
Rule Authority · S.D. Cal.
Co., 59 F.2d 969, 970 (2nd Cir. 1932)] From the point of view of the record in the bankruptcy court, the statute is inapplicable because the missing merchandise was missing when the receiver was appointed and never came into his hands.
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Co., 59 F.(2d) 969, 971 (C.
Cited (see also) · 2d Cir. · signal: see, e.g.
See, e.g., Vass v. Conron Bros., 59 F.2d at 971 ; In re DeLorean Motor Co., 991 F.2d at 1240-41 ; Matter of Campbell, 13 B.R. 974 (Bankr.D.Idaho 1981); Maguire v. Puente, 120 Misc.2d 871 , 466 N.Y.S.2d 934 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1983).
Cited (see also) · 2d Cir. · signal: see, e.g.
See, e.g., Vass v. Conron Bros., 59 F.2d at 971 ; In re DeLorean Motor Co., 991 F.2d at 1240-41 ; Matter of Campbell, 13 B.R. 974 (Bankr.D.Idaho 1981); Maguire v. Puente, 120 Misc.2d 871 , 466 N.Y.S.2d 934 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1983).
Cited · 2d Cir. · signal: see
See Vass v. Conron Bros., 59 F.2d 969, 971 (2d Cir. 1932) (L.
L. Hand, J.
green Austrian v. Williams (1954)
Cited · 2d Cir. · signal: see
See Vass v. Conron Bros., 2 Cir., 1932, 59 F.2d 969 .
green Austrian v. Williams (1954)
Cited · 2d Cir. · signal: see
See Vass v. Conron Bros., 2 Cir., 1932, 59 F.2d 969 .
Cited · S.D.N.Y. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Vass, 59 F.2d at 970 .
Cited (see also) · E.D. Pa. · signal: see also
See also Vass v. Conron Brothers Co., 59 F.2d 969 (2d Cir. 1932), per Learned Hand.
Cited (see also) · S.D.N.Y. · signal: see also
See also Thompson v. Texas Mexican Railway Co., 328 U.S. 134 , 66 S.Ct. 937 , 90 L.Ed. 1132 (1946).” The right to sue the Trustees on “causes of action arising out of the operation of the business by the Trustees” has been recognized in this Circuit in Vass v. Conron Brothers, 59 F.2d 969 (2d Cir. 1932) L.