Robert J. Sheldon & Joan M. Sheldon, Doing Bus. as World Bazaar of Southlake v. Munford, Inc. & Lee Wards Creative Crafts, Inc., 902 F.2d 7 (7th Cir. 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
Robert J. Sheldon & Joan M. Sheldon, Doing Bus. as World Bazaar of Southlake v. Munford, Inc. & Lee Wards Creative Crafts, Inc., 902 F.2d 7 (7th Cir. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“while barry may have a remedy under state law , she has failed to allege a federal constitutional or federal statutory violation”
50 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 17 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Arthur Knight v. City of Miami (ca11, 2002-08-06)
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Arthur Knight v. City of Miami (3×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
11th Cir. · 2002 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
while barry may have a remedy under state law , she has failed to allege a federal constitutional or federal statutory violation
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation
N.D. Cal. · 2020 · confidence medium
See also Dkt No. 326 of 4:18-cv-1889-HSG 28 4 2 Technology Co., Ltd. and Double Power Technology, Inc. in a case related to this action). 3 In doing so, this Court – relying on several similar cases from the Ninth Circuit and various 4 California district courts – explained that “[s]tipulations between parties are generally adopted by 5 courts and should not be lightly set aside” and “[s]tipulations entering injunctions are typically 6 upheld.” Id. (citing Dexter v. Kirschner, 984 F.2d 979, 984 (9th Cir. 1992); In re Lenox, 902 F.2d 7 737, 739 (9th Cir. 1990); Levi Strauss & Co. v.…
examined Cited as authority (rule) In Re Mid-City Parking, Inc. (3×)
Bankr. N.D. Ill. · 2005 · confidence medium
See Byrd, 357 F.3d at 439 ; Butler, 803 F.2d at 65 ; Ellison v. Northwest Engineering Co., 707 F.2d 1310, 1311 (11th Cir.1983); Sheldon v. Munford, 902 F.2d 7, 8-9 (7th Cir.1990); Ingersoll-Rand Financial Corp., 817 F.2d at 1426-27 ; Delpit, 18 F.3d at 769, 774 ; Commer-zanstalt, 790 F.2d at 207-08 ; Marcus, Stowell & Beye Gov’t Secs., 797 F.2d at 230 & n. 4; Maritime Electric Co., 959 F.2d at 1203, 1205-07 ; Ass’n of St.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re: Ralph T. Byrd, Debtor, Platinum Financial Services Corporation, Roger Schlossberg, Chapter 7 Trustee, Trustee-Appellant v. Ralph T. Byrd
4th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Simon v. Navon, 116 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1997); Parker v. Bain, 68 F.3d 1131 , 1135-36 & nn. 6, 8 (9th Cir.1995); Farley v. Henson, 2 F.3d 273, 275 (8th Cir.1993); Sheldon v. Munford, Inc., 902 F.2d 7, 8-9 (7th Cir.1990); Borman v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 946 F.2d 1031 , 1035 (3d Cir.1991); Matter of Barbier and Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc., 943 F.2d 249, 250 (2d Cir.1991); Marcus, Stowell & Beye Gov’t Sec., Inc. v. Jefferson Inv.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Oakwood Acceptance Corp. v. Tsinigini
navajo · 2003 · confidence medium
Corp., 797 F.2d 227 , 230 n. 4 (5th Cir. 1986), Cathey v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 711 F.2d 60, 62 (6th Cir. 1983), Sheldon v. Munford Inc., 902 F.2d 7, 8 (7th Cir. 1990), Farley v. Henson, 2 F.3d 273, 274 (8th Cir. 1993), Ingersoll-Rand Fin.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Parker v. Bain
9th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Corp., 797 F.2d 227 , 230 n. 4 (5th Cir.1986); Cathey v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 711 F.2d 60, 62 (6th Cir.1983); Sheldon v. Munford, Inc., 902 F.2d 7, 8 (7th Cir.1990); Farley v. Henson, 2 F.3d 273, 274 (8th Cir.1993); Ellison v. Northwest Eng'g Co., 707 F.2d 1310, 1310 (11th Cir.1983). 7 In response to the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules convened and drafted new rules, which the Committee subsequently submitted to the Supreme Court for consideration.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Parker v. Bain
9th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Corp., 797 F.2d 227 , 230 n. 4 (5th Cir.1986); Cathey v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 711 F.2d 60, 62 (6th Cir.1983); Sheldon v. Munford, Inc., 902 F.2d 7, 8 (7th Cir.1990); Farley v. Henson, 2 F.3d 273, 274 (8th Cir.1993); Ellison v. Northwest Eng’g Co., 707 F.2d 1310, 1310 (11th Cir.1983). .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) White v. City of Santee (In Re White)
9th Cir. BAP · 1995 · confidence medium
See also: Farley v. Henson, 2 F.3d 273 , 275 (8th Cir.1993); Sheldon v. Munford, Inc., 902 F.2d 7, 9 (7th Cir.1990); Ostano Commerzanstalt v. Telewide Sys., Inc., 790 F.2d 206, 207 (2nd Cir. 1986); Marcus, Stowell & Beye Gov’t Sec., Inc. v. Jefferson Inv.
examined Cited as authority (rule) In Re Keene Corp. (3×) also: Cited "see"
Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 1994 · confidence medium
Borman v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 946 F.2d 1031, 1035 (3d Cir.1991); Sheldon v. Munford, Inc., 902 F.2d 7, 8-9 (7th Cir.1990); Commerzanstalt v. Telewide Systems, Inc., 790 F.2d 206, 207 (2d Cir.1986); In re Keene, 162 B.R. at 942 . 2 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Capgro Leasing Associates
Bankr. E.D.N.Y. · 1994 · confidence medium
Corp., 797 F.2d 227 , 230 n. 4 (5th Cir.1986); Cathey v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 711 F.2d 60, 62 (6th Cir.1983); Sheldon v. Munford, Inc., 902 F.2d 7, 9 (7th Cir.1990); Farley v. Henson, 2 F.3d 273 , 274 (8th Cir.1993); Delpit v. Commissioner, 18 F.3d 768, 770 (9th Cir.1994); Ellison v. Northwest Engin.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Keene Corp. v. Acstar Insurance (In Re Keene Corp.)
Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 1994 · confidence medium
Commerzanstalt v. Telewide Systems, Inc., 790 F.2d 206, 207 (2d Cir.1986); accord Borman v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 946 F.2d 1031, 1035 (3d Cir.1991); Sheldon v. Munford, Inc., 902 F.2d 7, 8-9 (7th Cir.1990); Cathey v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 711 F.2d 60, 61-62 (6th Cir.1983).
cited Cited "see" Duplitronics, Inc. v. Concept Design Electronics & Manufacturing, Inc. (In Re Duplitronics, Inc.)
Bankr. N.D. Ill. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sheldon v. Munford, 902 F.2d 7 (7th Cir.1990). 9 .
discussed Cited "see" FLORIDA EASTERN DEV v. Len-Hal Realty
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sheldon, 902 F.2d at 8-9 (noting that the policies behind the automatic stay are implicated because the estate has an interest in the outcome of the appeal and suggesting that the bankruptcy court should ensure that the debtor is adequately represented in the appeal).
discussed Cited "see" Farley v. Henson
8th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sheldon, 902 F.2d at 8-9 (noting that the policies behind the automatic stay are implicated because the estate has an interest in the outcome of the appeal and suggesting that the bankruptcy court should ensure that the debtor is adequately represented in the appeal).
discussed Cited "see" ca8 1993
8th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sheldon, 902 F.2d at 8-9 (noting that the policies behind the automatic stay are implicated because the estate has an interest in the outcome of the appeal and suggesting that the bankruptcy court should ensure that the debtor is adequately represented in the appeal). 8 Finally, to apply or not apply the automatic stay depending upon whether an appeal was taken "against" or "by" a debtor would be impractical and unworkable.
discussed Cited "see" ca3 1991 (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
3rd Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sheldon, 902 F.2d at 9 .
discussed Cited "see" Borman v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
3rd Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sheldon, 902 F.2d at 9 .
Robert J. SHELDON and Joan M. Sheldon, Doing Business as World Bazaar of Southlake, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
MUNFORD, INC. and Lee Wards Creative Crafts, Inc., Defendants-Appellants
89-2324.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
May 15, 1990.
902 F.2d 7
Robert D. Brown and Robert D. Hawk, Spangler, Jennings & Dougherty, Merrill-ville, Ind., for plaintiffs-appellees., Marc P. Seidler, Stephen W. Schwab, and John F. Verhey, Rudnick & Wolfe, Chicago, Ill., and Daniel W. Glavin, Beckman, Kelly & Smith, Hammond, Ind., for defendants-appellants.
Wood, Cudahy, Posner.
Cited by 26 opinions  |  Published
POSNER, Circuit Judge.

The Sheldons obtained a judgment for $300,000 against Munford, Inc. (and a sister corporation that we shall ignore to simplify our opinion) in the district court. In order to stay execution of the judgment pending appeal to this court, Munford obtained a supersedeas bond issued by the Insurance Company of North America. Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d). The bond made INA jointly and severally liable on the judgment with Munford. Shortly before the appeal was to be argued, Munford filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and asked us to stay further proceedings in this court, pursuant to the automatic-stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). We granted the motion, and the Sheldons have asked us to reconsider our action.

A number of decisions hold that if the bankrupt has filed a supersedeas bond in order to prevent execution of the judgment against him, the automatic-stay provision is inapplicable: the appeal may go forward. Mid-Jersey National Bank v. Fidelity-Mortgage Investors, 518 F.2d 640 (3d Cir.1975); Grubb v. FDIC, 833 F.2d 222 (10th Cir.1987). The reasoning behind these decisions is that the supersedeas bond insulates the bankrupt estate from any possibility of harm as a result of the outcome of the appeal. Even if we affirm the judgment against Munford, INA will pay it; the unsecured creditors of Munford, who are the primary “owners” of the bankrupt estate, will pay nothing. The reasoning is incorrect. The supersedeas bond merely gives the judgment creditor another debtor to go after — the insurance company — once execution of the judgment is possible. It is not a release of the judgment debtor. Munford remains fully liable; it is just that INA is liable too.

Moreover, the outcome of the appeal is important to Munford, and hence to its creditors, even if the probability is one hundred percent (and realistically it is close to that) that INA will pay the judgment if we affirm. Munford must have given INA security adequate to make INA whole should the judgment against Munford be affirmed and execution issue against INA as guarantor of the judgment. If Munford wins the case on appeal and the Sheldons’ claim is thrown out, Munford will be entitled to the return of the security it pledged to INA. Carter Baron Drilling v. Excel Energy Corp., 76 B.R. 172 (D.Colo.1987). Or if before the appeal is decided, Munford settles with the Sheldons for less than $300,000, the part of the security not needed to compensate INA for ponying up the money for the settlement will revert to Munford. Either way, Munford’s creditors have a stake in the appeal notwithstanding the supersedeas bond. The stake may be of smaller magnitude than if there were no bond (in which event, the Sheldons concede, the automatic stay would prevent us from hearing the appeal), but it is of the same[*9] kind. The policy behind the automatic-stay provision is applicable and nothing in the text or history of the provision supports the creation of an exception.

We therefore respectfully disagree with our colleagues in the Third and Tenth Circuits and decline to allow the appeal to go forward. The Sheldons are of course free to seek vacation or modification of the automatic stay from the bankruptcy court. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d). Presumably that court will lift the stay (at least to the extent that the stay prevents this appeal from going forward) as soon as it is satisfied that Munford is adequately represented in this court; for Munford is the appellant and if it wins its creditors will be better off.

The motion to vacate the stay is denied. Because this decision creates an intercircuit conflict, it has been circulated in advance of publication to all the judges of the court in regular active service. 7th Cir.R. 40(f). No judge voted to hear the case en banc.