Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
North Star Contracting Corp. v. McSpedon (In Re North Star Contracting Corp.)green1 sentence2007See, e.g., North Star Contracting Corp. v. McSpedon (In re North Star Contracting Corp.), 125 B.R. 368, 370-71 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); Maxicare Health Plans, Inc. v. Centinela Mammoth Hosp. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Richard B. Vance and Co.green1 sentence2007Vance and Co., 289 B.R. 692, 697 (Bankr.C.D.Ill.2003) (“Even where unusual circumstances exist, extension of the stay to nonbankrupt parties is not automatic and must be requested affirmatively by the debtor.”); Bidermann Indus. | 1 | 1 |
555 M Manufacturing, Inc. v. Calvin Klein, Inc.green2 sentences2007See, e.g., 555 M Mfg., Inc. v. Calvin Klein, Inc., 13 F.Supp.2d 719, 722 (N.D.Ill.1998) (finding that a non-bankrupt co-defendant was not entitled to the grant of an automatic stay pursuant to section 362 based on, inter alia, the fact that the debtor did not request the stay and the bankruptcy court did not grant one); In re Richard B. 2007See, e.g., 555 M Mfg., Inc. v. Calvin Klein, Inc., 13 F.Supp.2d 719, 722 (N.D.Ill.1998) (finding that a non-bankrupt co-defendant was not entitled to the grant of an automatic stay pursuant to section 362 based on, inter alia, the fact that the debtor did not request the stay and the bankruptcy court did not grant one); In re Richard B. | 1 | 1 |
Cooper v. State Bargreen2 sentences2004See In re Wade, 948 F.2d 1122, 1124 (9th Cir.1991); In re Friedman & Shapiro, P.C., 185 B.R. 143, 145 (S.D.N.Y.1995); In re McAtee, 162 B.R. 574, 577-78 (N.D.Fla.1993); In re Williams, 158 B.R. 488, 491 (Bankr.D.Idaho 1993); In re Haberman, 137 B.R. 292, 294-94 (Bankr.E.D.Wis.1992); In re Fitch, 123 B.R. 61, 63 (Bankr.D.Idaho 1991); In re Hanson, 71 B.R. 193, 194 (Bankr.E.D.Wis.1987); Cooper v. State Bar, 43 Cal.3d 1016 , 239 Cal.Rptr. 709 , 741 P.2d 206, 211 (1987); Risker v. Commission For Lawyer Discipline, 94 S.W.3d 625, 632 (Tex.App.2002). 2004See In re Wade, 948 F.2d 1122, 1124 (9th Cir.1991); In re Friedman & Shapiro, P.C., 185 B.R. 143, 145 (S.D.N.Y.1995); In re McAtee, 162 B.R. 574, 577-78 (N.D.Fla.1993); In re Williams, 158 B.R. 488, 491 (Bankr.D.Idaho 1993); In re Haberman, 137 B.R. 292, 294-94 (Bankr.E.D.Wis.1992); In re Fitch, 123 B.R. 61, 63 (Bankr.D.Idaho 1991); In re Hanson, 71 B.R. 193, 194 (Bankr.E.D.Wis.1987); Cooper v. State Bar, 43 Cal.3d 1016 , 239 Cal.Rptr. 709 , 741 P.2d 206, 211 (1987); Risker v. Commission For Lawyer Discipline, 94 S.W.3d 625, 632 (Tex.App.2002). | 1 | 1 |
Risker v. Commission for Lawyer Disciplinegreen1 sentence2004See In re Wade, 948 F.2d 1122, 1124 (9th Cir.1991); In re Friedman & Shapiro, P.C., 185 B.R. 143, 145 (S.D.N.Y.1995); In re McAtee, 162 B.R. 574, 577-78 (N.D.Fla.1993); In re Williams, 158 B.R. 488, 491 (Bankr.D.Idaho 1993); In re Haberman, 137 B.R. 292, 294-94 (Bankr.E.D.Wis.1992); In re Fitch, 123 B.R. 61, 63 (Bankr.D.Idaho 1991); In re Hanson, 71 B.R. 193, 194 (Bankr.E.D.Wis.1987); Cooper v. State Bar, 43 Cal.3d 1016 , 239 Cal.Rptr. 709 , 741 P.2d 206, 211 (1987); Risker v. Commission For Lawyer Discipline, 94 S.W.3d 625, 632 (Tex.App.2002). | 1 | 1 |
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Haberman (In Re Haberman)green1 sentence2004See In re Wade, 948 F.2d 1122, 1124 (9th Cir.1991); In re Friedman & Shapiro, P.C., 185 B.R. 143, 145 (S.D.N.Y.1995); In re McAtee, 162 B.R. 574, 577-78 (N.D.Fla.1993); In re Williams, 158 B.R. 488, 491 (Bankr.D.Idaho 1993); In re Haberman, 137 B.R. 292, 294-94 (Bankr.E.D.Wis.1992); In re Fitch, 123 B.R. 61, 63 (Bankr.D.Idaho 1991); In re Hanson, 71 B.R. 193, 194 (Bankr.E.D.Wis.1987); Cooper v. State Bar, 43 Cal.3d 1016 , 239 Cal.Rptr. 709 , 741 P.2d 206, 211 (1987); Risker v. Commission For Lawyer Discipline, 94 S.W.3d 625, 632 (Tex.App.2002). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Fitchgreen1 sentence2004See In re Wade, 948 F.2d 1122, 1124 (9th Cir.1991); In re Friedman & Shapiro, P.C., 185 B.R. 143, 145 (S.D.N.Y.1995); In re McAtee, 162 B.R. 574, 577-78 (N.D.Fla.1993); In re Williams, 158 B.R. 488, 491 (Bankr.D.Idaho 1993); In re Haberman, 137 B.R. 292, 294-94 (Bankr.E.D.Wis.1992); In re Fitch, 123 B.R. 61, 63 (Bankr.D.Idaho 1991); In re Hanson, 71 B.R. 193, 194 (Bankr.E.D.Wis.1987); Cooper v. State Bar, 43 Cal.3d 1016 , 239 Cal.Rptr. 709 , 741 P.2d 206, 211 (1987); Risker v. Commission For Lawyer Discipline, 94 S.W.3d 625, 632 (Tex.App.2002). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Williamsgreen1 sentence2004See In re Wade, 948 F.2d 1122, 1124 (9th Cir.1991); In re Friedman & Shapiro, P.C., 185 B.R. 143, 145 (S.D.N.Y.1995); In re McAtee, 162 B.R. 574, 577-78 (N.D.Fla.1993); In re Williams, 158 B.R. 488, 491 (Bankr.D.Idaho 1993); In re Haberman, 137 B.R. 292, 294-94 (Bankr.E.D.Wis.1992); In re Fitch, 123 B.R. 61, 63 (Bankr.D.Idaho 1991); In re Hanson, 71 B.R. 193, 194 (Bankr.E.D.Wis.1987); Cooper v. State Bar, 43 Cal.3d 1016 , 239 Cal.Rptr. 709 , 741 P.2d 206, 211 (1987); Risker v. Commission For Lawyer Discipline, 94 S.W.3d 625, 632 (Tex.App.2002). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Hansongreen1 sentence2004See In re Wade, 948 F.2d 1122, 1124 (9th Cir.1991); In re Friedman & Shapiro, P.C., 185 B.R. 143, 145 (S.D.N.Y.1995); In re McAtee, 162 B.R. 574, 577-78 (N.D.Fla.1993); In re Williams, 158 B.R. 488, 491 (Bankr.D.Idaho 1993); In re Haberman, 137 B.R. 292, 294-94 (Bankr.E.D.Wis.1992); In re Fitch, 123 B.R. 61, 63 (Bankr.D.Idaho 1991); In re Hanson, 71 B.R. 193, 194 (Bankr.E.D.Wis.1987); Cooper v. State Bar, 43 Cal.3d 1016 , 239 Cal.Rptr. 709 , 741 P.2d 206, 211 (1987); Risker v. Commission For Lawyer Discipline, 94 S.W.3d 625, 632 (Tex.App.2002). | 1 | 1 |
Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department v. Shapiro (In Re Friedman & Shapiro, P.C.)green1 sentence2004See In re Wade, 948 F.2d 1122, 1124 (9th Cir.1991); In re Friedman & Shapiro, P.C., 185 B.R. 143, 145 (S.D.N.Y.1995); In re McAtee, 162 B.R. 574, 577-78 (N.D.Fla.1993); In re Williams, 158 B.R. 488, 491 (Bankr.D.Idaho 1993); In re Haberman, 137 B.R. 292, 294-94 (Bankr.E.D.Wis.1992); In re Fitch, 123 B.R. 61, 63 (Bankr.D.Idaho 1991); In re Hanson, 71 B.R. 193, 194 (Bankr.E.D.Wis.1987); Cooper v. State Bar, 43 Cal.3d 1016 , 239 Cal.Rptr. 709 , 741 P.2d 206, 211 (1987); Risker v. Commission For Lawyer Discipline, 94 S.W.3d 625, 632 (Tex.App.2002). | 1 | 1 |
McAtee v. Florida Bar (In Re McAtee)green1 sentence2004See In re Wade, 948 F.2d 1122, 1124 (9th Cir.1991); In re Friedman & Shapiro, P.C., 185 B.R. 143, 145 (S.D.N.Y.1995); In re McAtee, 162 B.R. 574, 577-78 (N.D.Fla.1993); In re Williams, 158 B.R. 488, 491 (Bankr.D.Idaho 1993); In re Haberman, 137 B.R. 292, 294-94 (Bankr.E.D.Wis.1992); In re Fitch, 123 B.R. 61, 63 (Bankr.D.Idaho 1991); In re Hanson, 71 B.R. 193, 194 (Bankr.E.D.Wis.1987); Cooper v. State Bar, 43 Cal.3d 1016 , 239 Cal.Rptr. 709 , 741 P.2d 206, 211 (1987); Risker v. Commission For Lawyer Discipline, 94 S.W.3d 625, 632 (Tex.App.2002). | 1 | 1 |
In Re E. Gene Wade Joyzelle I. Wade, Debtors. E. Gene Wade Joyzelle I. Wade v. State Bar of Arizonagreen1 sentence2004See In re Wade, 948 F.2d 1122, 1124 (9th Cir.1991); In re Friedman & Shapiro, P.C., 185 B.R. 143, 145 (S.D.N.Y.1995); In re McAtee, 162 B.R. 574, 577-78 (N.D.Fla.1993); In re Williams, 158 B.R. 488, 491 (Bankr.D.Idaho 1993); In re Haberman, 137 B.R. 292, 294-94 (Bankr.E.D.Wis.1992); In re Fitch, 123 B.R. 61, 63 (Bankr.D.Idaho 1991); In re Hanson, 71 B.R. 193, 194 (Bankr.E.D.Wis.1987); Cooper v. State Bar, 43 Cal.3d 1016 , 239 Cal.Rptr. 709 , 741 P.2d 206, 211 (1987); Risker v. Commission For Lawyer Discipline, 94 S.W.3d 625, 632 (Tex.App.2002). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Theodore W. Spong, Debtor. Raymond J. Pauley v. Theodore W. Sponggreen1 sentence2003See In re Spong, 661 F.2d 6, 11 (2nd Cir.1981); In re Silansky 897 F.2d 743, 745 (4th Cir.1990); In re Kline, 65 F.3d 749 (8th Cir.1995); In re Strickland, 90 F.3d 444, 447 (11th Cir.1996); In re Moon, 211 B.R. 483 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (order holding debtor in contempt for *28 wilful failure to pay fees of debtor’s wife in nature of spousal support and not subject to § 362 stay). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Kenneth I. Strickland, Debtor. Kenneth I. Strickland v. John Hugh Shannon, Lauren J. Stricklandgreen1 sentence2003See In re Spong, 661 F.2d 6, 11 (2nd Cir.1981); In re Silansky 897 F.2d 743, 745 (4th Cir.1990); In re Kline, 65 F.3d 749 (8th Cir.1995); In re Strickland, 90 F.3d 444, 447 (11th Cir.1996); In re Moon, 211 B.R. 483 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (order holding debtor in contempt for *28 wilful failure to pay fees of debtor’s wife in nature of spousal support and not subject to § 362 stay). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Suttongreen1 sentence2003See In re Sutton, 250 B.R. 771 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Fla.2000) (State court order to pay fees of guardian ad litem within 20 days, without prior determination of dischargeability of debt and without specifying whether payment may come from estate property not excluded from § 362 stay). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Edward Raymond Silansky, Bk 88-00039-At Bk Adver. 88-0116, Debtor. Edward Raymond Silansky v. Brodsky, Greenblatt & Renehangreen1 sentence2003See In re Spong, 661 F.2d 6, 11 (2nd Cir.1981); In re Silansky 897 F.2d 743, 745 (4th Cir.1990); In re Kline, 65 F.3d 749 (8th Cir.1995); In re Strickland, 90 F.3d 444, 447 (11th Cir.1996); In re Moon, 211 B.R. 483 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (order holding debtor in contempt for *28 wilful failure to pay fees of debtor’s wife in nature of spousal support and not subject to § 362 stay). | 1 | 1 |
Lynch v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.green1 sentence1995The purpose of the stay is to put a halt to “proceedings against the debtor, and no other, to preserve the status quo of the estate in an effort to ultimately effect and implement ... a successful and equitable reorganization or liquidation.” Lynch v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 710 F.2d 1194, 1197 (6th Cir.1983) (emphasis added, footnote omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| KALB Et Ux. v. FEUERSTEIN Et Ux.green | 1 | 1 |
| Kalb v. Feuersteingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ace Tile Co. v. Casson Construction Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Wright v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Klass v. Klass
green
2 sentences2007We recognize that the Court of Appeals has held that the Maryland trial courts have jurisdiction “to determine, at least in the first instance, whether and how a matter properly pending before it is affected by a § 362 stay.” Klass v. Klass, 377 Md. 13, 20 , 831 A.2d 1067 (2003). 2007We recognize that the Court of Appeals has held that the Maryland trial courts have jurisdiction “to determine, at least in the first instance, whether and how a matter properly pending before it is affected by a § 362 stay.” Klass v. Klass, 377 Md. 13, 20 , 831 A.2d 1067 (2003). | 2 | 2006–2007 |
Robert A. Sikes and Janice K. Sikes v. Global Marine, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015It explained that those courts espousing the minority view, see, e.g., Sikes v. Global Marine, Inc., 881 F.2d 176 (5th Cir.1989) (actions taken in violation of the automatic stay merely are voidable), reason that, because the bankruptcy court has the authority, under section 362(d) and (f), “to annul [a] stay retroactively, thereby effectively validating actions taken in violation of a stay,” Congress must have intended that acts taken in violation of the stay be merely voidable. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Bidermann Industries U.S.A., Inc. v. Zelnik (In Re Bidermann Industries U.S.A., Inc.)
green
1 sentence2007U.S.A., Inc., 200 B.R. at 782 ; All Seasons Resorts, Inc., 79 B.R. at 904 . 11 Consequently, no affirmative act is required on the part of a debtor to obtain a section 362 stay. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
All Seasons Resorts, Inc. v. Milner (In Re All Seasons Resorts, Inc.)
green
1 sentence2007U.S.A., Inc., 200 B.R. at 782 ; All Seasons Resorts, Inc., 79 B.R. at 904 . 11 Consequently, no affirmative act is required on the part of a debtor to obtain a section 362 stay. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Collier v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.
green
1 sentence2007Id. at 47-48, 585 A.2d 256 (emphasis added) (internal citations and quotations omitted). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.
green
2 sentences2003We need not consider here whether, under the so-called Rooker-Feldman doctrine (Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 , 44 S.Ct. 149 , 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 , 103 S.Ct. 1303 , 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983)), a State court decision resolving the effect of a § 362 stay on a matter otherwise within its jurisdiction is entitled to preclusive effect in the Bankruptcy Court or another Federal court. 2003We need not consider here whether, under the so-called Rooker-Feldman doctrine (Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 , 44 S.Ct. 149 , 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 , 103 S.Ct. 1303 , 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983)), a State court decision resolving the effect of a § 362 stay on a matter otherwise within its jurisdiction is entitled to preclusive effect in the Bankruptcy Court or another Federal court. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Moon v. Moon
green
1 sentence2003See In re Spong, 661 F.2d 6, 11 (2nd Cir.1981); In re Silansky 897 F.2d 743, 745 (4th Cir.1990); In re Kline, 65 F.3d 749 (8th Cir.1995); In re Strickland, 90 F.3d 444, 447 (11th Cir.1996); In re Moon, 211 B.R. 483 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (order holding debtor in contempt for *28 wilful failure to pay fees of debtor’s wife in nature of spousal support and not subject to § 362 stay). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Goldberg v. Miller
green
2 sentences2003In Goldberg v. Miller, 371 Md. 591 , 810 A.2d 947 (2002), we held that fees awarded to a guardian at litem appointed to represent children in a divorce, custody, or child support case did not constitute child support under Maryland law. 2003In Goldberg v. Miller, 371 Md. 591 , 810 A.2d 947 (2002), we held that fees awarded to a guardian at litem appointed to represent children in a divorce, custody, or child support case did not constitute child support under Maryland law. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
In Re Keith Alan Kline, Debtor. Ronald R. Holliday v. Keith Alan Kline
green
1 sentence2003See In re Spong, 661 F.2d 6, 11 (2nd Cir.1981); In re Silansky 897 F.2d 743, 745 (4th Cir.1990); In re Kline, 65 F.3d 749 (8th Cir.1995); In re Strickland, 90 F.3d 444, 447 (11th Cir.1996); In re Moon, 211 B.R. 483 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (order holding debtor in contempt for *28 wilful failure to pay fees of debtor’s wife in nature of spousal support and not subject to § 362 stay). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman
green
2 sentences2003We need not consider here whether, under the so-called Rooker-Feldman doctrine (Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 , 44 S.Ct. 149 , 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 , 103 S.Ct. 1303 , 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983)), a State court decision resolving the effect of a § 362 stay on a matter otherwise within its jurisdiction is entitled to preclusive effect in the Bankruptcy Court or another Federal court. 2003We need not consider here whether, under the so-called Rooker-Feldman doctrine (Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 , 44 S.Ct. 149 , 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 , 103 S.Ct. 1303 , 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983)), a State court decision resolving the effect of a § 362 stay on a matter otherwise within its jurisdiction is entitled to preclusive effect in the Bankruptcy Court or another Federal court. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Home Indemnity Co. v. Killian
green
1 sentence1995Co. v. Killian, 94 Md. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Nnoli v. Nnoli
green
2 sentences1995“The effect of the automatic stay on a pending suit in another court is to suspend that suit; it does not cause that suit to be dismissed.” Nnoli v. Nnoli, 101 Md.App. 243, 250 , 646 A.2d 1021 (1994). 1995“The effect of the automatic stay on a pending suit in another court is to suspend that suit; it does not cause that suit to be dismissed.” Nnoli v. Nnoli, 101 Md.App. 243, 250 , 646 A.2d 1021 (1994). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| In Re Smith Corset Shops, Inc., Debtor. Appeal of Laurent Brodeur green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
48th Street Steakhouse, Inc. v. Rockefeller Group, Inc. (In re 48th Street Steakhouse, Inc.)
green
2 sentences1992See Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433 , 60 S.Ct. 343 , 84 L.Ed. 370 (1940); In re Smith Corset Shops, Inc., 696 F.2d 971 (1st Cir.1982); In re 48th Street Steakhouse, Inc., 835 F.2d 427 (2d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1035 , 108 S.Ct. 1596 , 99 L.Ed.2d 910 (1988); In re Ward, 837 F.2d 124 (3d Cir.1988); I.C.C. v. Holmes Transp., Inc., 931 F.2d 984 (1st Cir.1991); In re Smith, 876 F.2d 524 (6th Cir.1989); In re Shamblin, 890 F.2d 123 (9th Cir.1989); Ellis v. Consolidated Diesel Elec. 1992See Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433 , 60 S.Ct. 343 , 84 L.Ed. 370 (1940); In re Smith Corset Shops, Inc., 696 F.2d 971 (1st Cir.1982); In re 48th Street Steakhouse, Inc., 835 F.2d 427 (2d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1035 , 108 S.Ct. 1596 , 99 L.Ed.2d 910 (1988); In re Ward, 837 F.2d 124 (3d Cir.1988); I.C.C. v. Holmes Transp., Inc., 931 F.2d 984 (1st Cir.1991); In re Smith, 876 F.2d 524 (6th Cir.1989); In re Shamblin, 890 F.2d 123 (9th Cir.1989); Ellis v. Consolidated Diesel Elec. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co. v. Shamblin (In re Shamblin) green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Interstate Commerce Commission v. Holmes Transportation, Inc. green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Rockefeller Group, Inc. v. 48th Street Steakhouse, Inc. green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| In Re Cynthia WARD, Debtor-Appellee. Appeal of BOWEST CORPORATION green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| In Re Nita B. Smith, Debtor. Nita B. Smith, Cross-Appellant v. First America Bank, N.A., Cross-Appellee green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.