green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
3.6 score
“priority tax claimants, which receive preferential treatment under the code ..., are not an impaired class that can accept a plan and bind other truly impaired creditors to cramdown.”
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Curtis Center Ltd. Partnership
priority tax claimants, which receive preferential treatment under the code ..., are not an impaired class that can accept a plan and bind other truly impaired creditors to cramdown.
cited
Cited "see"
JGB Industries, Inc. v. Simon-Telelect, Inc.
See id. (citing In re Bryson Properties, XVIII, 961 F.2d 496, 499 (4th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 866 , 113 S.Ct. 191 , 121 L.Ed.2d 134 (1992)).
cited
Cited "see"
In re Remington Forest
See In re Bryson Properties, XVIII, 961 F.2d 496, 503 (4th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 866 , 113 S.Ct. 191 , 121 L.Ed.2d 134 (1992); In re W.C.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, Inc.
See also In re Bryson Properties, XVIII, 961 F.2d 496, 501 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 866 , 113 S.Ct. 191 , 121 L.Ed.2d 134 (1992); In re Willows Convalescent Ctrs., L.P., 151 B.R. 220, 224 (D.Minn.1991); In re 499 W.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. John D. Rogers
Compare United States v. Stephens, 964 F.2d 424, 427 (5th Cir. 1992) (holding that an overt act is required) with United States v. Tormos-Vega, 959 F.2d 1103, 1115 (1st Cir.) (stating that no overt act is required), cer t. denied, 506 U.S. 866 , 113 S.Ct. 191 , 121 L.Ed.2d 135 (1992) and United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934, 983 (2d Cir. 1990) (same), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1211 , 111 S.Ct. 2811 , 115 L.Ed.2d 984 (1991), and cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1233 , 111 S.Ct. 2858 (1991).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Wetzler v. Cantor
See, e.g., In re Bryson Properties, XVIII, 961 F.2d 496, 499 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 866 , 113 S.Ct. 191 , 121 L.Ed.2d 134 (1992); In re Patch, 24 B.R. 563, 565 (D.Md.1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Matter of 183 Lorraine Street Associates
The purpose of the requirement that a deficiency claim be classified with other unsecured claims is “to allow the undersecured creditor a right to potentially dominate the vote within the unsecured class.” 24 In re 500 Fifth Avenue Assoc., 148 B.R. 1010,1021 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 1993 WL 316183 (S.D.N.Y.1993). “[I]f claims could be arbitrarily placed in separate classes, it would almost always be possible for the [proponent of a plan] to manipulate ‘acceptance’ by artful classification.” In re Greystone III Joint Venture, 995 F.2d 1274, 1277 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ingebretsen on Behalf of Ingebretsen v. Jackson Public School Dist.
See, e.g., Society of Separationists v. Herman, 959 F.2d 1283 (5th Cir.) (en banc) (Higginbotham, J.), cert. denied 506 U.S. 866 , 113 S.Ct. 191 , 121 L.Ed.2d 135 (1992); National Treasury Employees Union v. Department of Treasury, 25 F.3d 237 , 240-41 (5th Cir.1994); Henschen v. City of Houston, 959 F.2d 584 (5th Cir.1992). .
Schroeder
v.
Texas
v.
Texas
No. 92-107.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 5, 1992.
Published
Citer courts: E.D. Pennsylvania (1)
Ct. App. Tex., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.