Cases pin-citing Nobelman

Nobelman v. American Savings Bank · 1993 · 62 pinpoint citations from 22 cases, 16 distinct passages.

Paddock, LLC v. Bennett (In Re Bennett) · 2019-02-28 · Eighth Circuit · pin 124 L. Ed. 2d at 228

"The nature and extent of the debtor's interest in property are determined by state law."

BOKF, NA v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB (In re MPM Silicones, L.L.C.) · 2019-01-04 · S.D. Illinois · 3 pin-cites · pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 228

"The lender's power to enforce its rights-and, in particular, its right to foreclose on the property in the event of default-is checked by the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provision."

In re Crumbs Bake Shop, Inc. · 2014-10-31 · D. New Jersey · 3 pin-cites · pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 228

“General language of a statute does not prevail over matters specifically dealt with in another part of the same enactment”

In re Wimmer · 2014-06-30 · S.D. New York · 3 pin-cites · pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 228

“Nobelman”

Santander Consumer USA, Inc. v. Phillip Jefferson Brown · 2014-03-27 · Eleventh Circuit · 3 pin-cites · pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 228

“Petitioners were correct in looking to § 506(a) for a judicial valuation of the collateral to determine the status of the bank’s secured claim.”

In re Pick & Save, Inc. · 2012-09-13 · D. Puerto Rico · 3 pin-cites · pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 228

“[t]he unqualified word ‘claim’ is broadly defined under the Code”

In Re Jones · 2010-04-22 · W.D. Michigan · 3 pin-cites · pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 228

“Congress has left the determination of property rights in the assets of a bankrupt’s estate to state law, since such property interests are created and defined by state law.”

In Re Field · 2009-10-08 · D. Nevada · 3 pin-cites · pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 228

“Congress has ‘left the determination of property rights in the assets of a bankrupt’s estate to state law,’ since such ‘[p]roperty interests are created and defined by state law’ ”

In Re Cormier · 2008-02-14 · W.D. Michigan · 2 pin-cites · pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 228

“In the absence of a controlling federal rule, we generally assume that Congress has left the determination of property rights in the assets of a bankrupt’s estate to state law, since such property interests are created and defined by state law.”

Claybrook Ex Rel. Debtors Scott Acquisition Corp. v. Broad & Cassel, P.A. (In Re Scott Acquisition Corp.) · 2007-03-06 · D. Delaware · 3 pin-cites · pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 228

“In the absence of a controlling federal rule, we generally assume that Congress has left the determination of property rights in the assets of a bankrupt’s estate to state law.”

Johnson v. LONG BEACH MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2001-4 · 2006-08-04 · District of Columbia · 3 pin-cites · pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 228

“we have specifically recognized that the justifications for application of state law are not limited to ownership interests, but apply with equal force to security interests, including the interest of a mortgagee”

Kent's Run Partnership, Ltd. v. Glosser · 2005-03-31 · W.D. Pennsylvania · 3 pin-cites · pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 228

“In the absence of a controlling federal rule, [the court will] generally assume that Congress has left the determination of property rights in the assets of a bankrupt’s estate to state law.”

Grochocinski v. Crossman (In Re Crossman) · 2001-03-08 · N.D. Illinois · 3 pin-cites · pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 228

“In the absence of a controlling federal rule, we generally assume that Congress has ‘left the determination of property rights in the assets of a bankrupt’s estate to state law.’ ”

In Re: Daniel Fordu, Debtor. Harold A. Corzin v. Julie A. Fordu · 1999-12-22 · Sixth Circuit · 3 pin-cites · pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 228

“Congress has ‘left the determination of property rights in the assets of a bankrupt’s estate to state law,’ since such ‘property rights are created and defined by state law.’ ”

First Union National Bank v. Gibbons (In Re Princeton-New York Investors, Inc.) · 1998-03-13 · D. New Jersey · 3 pin-cites · pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 228

“In the absence of a controlling federal rule, we generally assume that Congress has left the determination of property rights in the assets of a bankrupt’s estate to state law.”

Integrated Solutions, Inc. v. Service Support Specialties, Inc. · 1997-08-22 · Third Circuit · 3 pin-cites · pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 228

“In the absence of a controlling federal rule, we generally assume that Congress has left the determination of property rights in the assets of a bankrupt’s estate to state law.”

Integrated Solutions, Inc. v. Service Support Specialties, Inc. · 1997-08-22 · Third Circuit · 4 pin-cites · pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 228

"In the absence of a controlling federal rule, we generally assume that Congress has left the determination of property rights in the assets of a bankrupt's estate to state law."

Integrated Solutions, Inc. v. Service Support Specialties, Inc. · 1997-08-22 · Third Circuit · 3 pin-cites · pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 228

"In the absence of a controlling federal rule, we generally assume that Congress has left the determination of property rights in the assets of a bankrupt's estate to state law."

In Re Farley, Inc. · 1997-01-17 · N.D. Illinois · 3 pin-cites · pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 228

“General language of a statute does not prevail over matters specifically dealt with in another part of the same enactment”

In Re Churchill Properties III, Ltd. Partnership · 1996-06-06 · N.D. Illinois · 3 pin-cites · pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 228

“General language of a statute does not prevail over matters specifically dealt with in another part of the same enactment”

Dupree v. Lomas Mortgage USA, Inc. (In Re Dupree) · 1995-06-16 · W.D. Oklahoma · 2 pin-cites · pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 228

“No-belman”

In Re McKinney · 1994-10-03 · S.D. Alabama · 2 pin-cites · pin 113 L. Ed. 2d at 228

“General language of a statute does ‘not prevail over *336 matters specifically dealt -with in another part of the same enactment’ (cites omitted)”

Page 1 of 2 Next →