Notes of Decisions
Lawrence H. Ramming v. United States of Am., John Thomas Cloud v. United States, 281 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2001).
· cites it 4× “Judge Gilmore’s order of December 30, 1999, also rejected Appellant’s argument that Appellant was entitled to a two-year extension of the FTCA limitations period as of the date of his November 26, 1997, bankruptcy filing pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 108 (a) of the Bankruptcy Code.”
Beloit Liquidating Trust v. Grade, 2003 WI App 176 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 30× “57, and that the two-year extension provided for by 11 U.S.C. § 108 (a) did not apply. [2] Further, the circuit court held that the defendants *397 owed no duty to Beloit Corporation's creditors.”
Tingley v. Harrison, 867 P.2d 960 (Idaho 1994).
· cites it 14× “Whether the district court erred in ruling that 11 U.S.C. § 108 (a) extends the statute of limitation to a trustee only and in finding that the trustee failed to timely join this cause of action under 11 U.”
Coy Cox, Jr. v. Specialty Veh. Solutions, 715 F. App'x 443 (6th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 15× “SVS also argued that the one-year statute of limitations had run because Cox did not refile his action within the thirty days allowed by 11 U.S.C. § 108 (c) as a grace period after the lifting of the stay.”
In re Jimerson, 564 B.R. 430 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2017).
· cites it 36× “§ 1322 can be used to permit the redemption amount to be paid over time, or whether 11 U.S.C. § 108 (b) provides the only extension of time associated with redemption, foreclosing modification of the payment obligation under 11 U.”
Beloit Liquidating Trust v. Grade, 2004 WI 39 (Wis. 2004).
· cites it 7× “The court of appeals reversed the circuit court, concluding that the officers and directors had a duty to the creditors before Beloit Corporation went out of business. The court of appeals further concluded that Delaware, not Wisconsin, law was applicable to the present case.”
Prod. Credit Ass'n of Minot v. Burk, 427 N.W.2d 108 (N.D. 1988).
· cites it 20× “Instead, 11 U.S.C. § 108 addresses the running of statutory time periods and provides in pertinent part: "(b) Except as provided in subsection (a) of this section, if applicable nonbankruptcy law, an order entered in a nonbankruptcy proceeding, or an agreement fixes a period…”
Baker v. Gold Seal Liquors, Inc., 417 U.S. 467 (1974).
· cites it 10× “[1] That is the procedure under § 68 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U. S. C. § 108 . [2] *470 The problem of the bankruptcy Reorganization Court is somewhat different.”
William Canada, Jr. v. USA (IRS), 950 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 2020).
· cites it 6× “§ 7430 was untimely and not tolled by 11 U.S.C. § 108 (a). 5 Case: 18-11398 Document: 00515316589 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/20/2020 No.”
Hermosilla v. Hermosilla (In Re Hermosilla), 450 B.R. 276 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2011).
· cites it 15× “In any event, Attorney Baker was on notice as to the existence of 11 U.S.C. § 108 (c) because that case expressly references 11 U.”
USA/Internal Revenue Serv. v. Valley Nat'l Bank (In Re Decker), 199 B.R. 684 (9th Cir. BAP 1996).
· cites it 12× “It is unnecessary for us to resolve whether the 10-year time limit of section 6324 is limitational or durational; the period's expiration was stayed during the Debtor's bankruptcy *688 by 11 U.S.C. § 108 (c). That section provides in its relevant part: Except as provided in…”
Brashear v. Victoria Gardens of McKinney, L.L.C., 302 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “Brashear argues that federal bankruptcy law, specifically 11 U.S.C. § 108 (c), tolled her deadline to appeal until at least thirty days after August 17, 2007, when RainTree’s bankruptcy closed.”
U.S. Lines, Inc. v. U.S. Lines Reorganization Trust, 262 B.R. 223 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
· cites it 12× “On June 5, 1997, the Bankruptcy Judge announced the decision and MALC noted the impact of 11 U.S.C. § 108 (c) which provides for a thirty day complaint filing deadline for causes of action whose limitation period expired during the pendency of the bankruptcy stay against…”
In re Gonzalez, 550 B.R. 711 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2016).
· cites it 8× “Here, the Objectors focus on the state law temporal limitation on the Debtor’s right of redemption — that the right of redemption must be exercised within the later of the statutory nine (9) month period (or sixty (60) days after the commencement of the bankruptcy case, pursuant…”
Max v. Northington (In Re Northington), 876 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 4× “Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 108 (b), the Bankruptcy Code extended Wilber’s state-law grace period an additional 60 days from the date of his petition, giving him until December 29 to redeem the car.”
In Re H & W Enter., Inc., 19 B.R. 582 (Bankr. D. Iowa 1982).
· cites it 13× “The Court then refers to 11 U.S.C. § 108 (b). Id. 2 The Court further states that unlike 11 U.”
Patterson v. Shumate, 504 U.S. 753 (1992).
· cites it 3× “1981) (§ 1125(d) includes federal securities law); 11 U. S. C. § 108 (a) (referring to statute of limitations fixed by "applicable nonbankruptcy law"); In re Ahead By a Length, Inc.”
Hermosilla v. Hermosilla (In Re Hermosilla), 430 B.R. 13 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2010).
· cites it 8× “In any event, she argues, the defense is patently erroneous as a matter of law because the statute of limitations for her personal injury action was tolled by 11 U.S.C. § 108 (c). The Debtor In his brief, the Debtor argues that Count III of the Complaint fails to state a cause…”
Charles Daff v. Karen Good, 906 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2018).
· cites it 8× “on a claim against a debtor” under the bankruptcy code’s tolling provision, 11 U.S.C. § 108 (c), and is thus tolled during the automatic stay.”
Thurman v. Tafoya, 895 P.2d 1050 (Colo. 1995).
· cites it 9× “Thurman argued that 11 U.S.C. § 108 (c) (1988) tolled the statute of limitations period for enforcement of the note for a period equal to the amount of time the Tafoyas were under bankruptcy court protection.”
Statewide Funding Corp. v. Reed, 925 P.2d 578 (Okla. Civ. App. 1996).
· cites it 34× “[3] In response, Creditor's answer brief argued that it could not file its motion until the stay was lifted, and that 11 U.S.C. § 108 (c) (1994) gave Creditor the remaining 87 days of the 90-day period after the lifting of the stay in which to file the motion for deficiency.”
Turner v. United States (In Re Turner), 182 B.R. 317 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1995).
· cites it 9× “The IRS contends that, by virtue of 11 U.S.C. § 108 (c) and 26 U.S.C. § 6503 (h), the section 507(a)(7)(A)(i) three year priority period and the section 507(a)(7)(A)(ii) 240 day period and the 523(a)(7)(B) three year dis-chargeability period were all suspended during the time…”
Gore v. United States (In Re Gore), 182 B.R. 293 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1995).
· cites it 8× “STATUTORY TIME SUSPENSION A. Taxes and Plain Language The IRS contends that the three year priority period of section 507(a)(7)(A)(i) and the three year dischargeability period of section 523(a)(7)(B) are suspended by operation of 11 U.”
Turner v. United States (In Re Turner), 195 B.R. 476 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1996).
· cites it 9× “It reads in part: While the Court recognizes the apparent validity of the above [Turner v. United States ] “plain language” approach, the majority of courts have determined that incorporation of the suspension provisions of the IRC through § 108(c) [ 11 U.”
Hoang v. Lowery, 228 A.3d 1148 (Md. 2020).
· cites it 4× “We agreed with the Court of Special Appeals’ analysis that, like the default federal tolling provision in 11 U.S.C. § 108 , the state tolling provision contained in CJ § 5- 202 “was enacted ‘to address the public’s complaint that debtors manipulated the bankruptcy and insolvency…”
McConnell v. K-2 Mortg. (In Re McConnell), 390 B.R. 170 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2008).
· cites it 9× “The Bankruptcy Code, at 11 U.S.C. § 108 , contains a tolling provision which serves to toll statutes of limitation upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition.”
GMAC Mortg. Corp. v. Gisvold, 572 N.W.2d 466 (Wis. 1998).
· cites it 5× “are tolled" pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 108 . Richard S. Ralston, Bankruptcy Stays: A Practitioner's Guide to Stays and Relief from Stays 37 (1990).”
Jinks v. Richland Cnty., 538 U.S. 456 (2003).
· cites it 2× “nto the environment from a facility, if the applicable limitations period for such action (as specified in the State statute of limitations or under common law) provides a commencement date which is earlier than the federally required commencement date, such period shall…”
McCoy v. Grinnell (In Re Radcliffe's Warehouse Sales, Inc.), 31 B.R. 827 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 1983).
· cites it 10× “1010 et seq is not barred by the statute of limitations by intervention of the filing of the debtor’s petition, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 108 . In the alternative, the trustee asserts that the transfer was concealed and the above entitled action was commenced within 6 months of…”
Wilkey v. Union Bank & Trust Co. (In Re Baird), 63 B.R. 60 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 1986).
· cites it 6× “1 The trustee concedes that he commenced this action more than six months after the alleged preference took place, but argues that because the statute of limitations was tolled by 11 U.S.C. § 108 (c) during the period of the debtor’s earlier Chapter 11 proceedings, his suit was…”
In Re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 452 B.R. 52 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011).
· cites it 8× “*54 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING FOREIGN REPRESENTATIVES’ MOTION FOR RELIEF UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 108 AND SETTING THE DATE OF THE “ORDER FOR RELIEF” BURTON R.”
In Re Nolan, 205 B.R. 885 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1997).
· cites it 8×
Rogers v. Corrosion Prods., Inc., 42 F.3d 292 (5th Cir. 1995).
· cites it 3× “In Morton, a bank that had a hen on the debtor’s property faced the end of the state ten-year period in which it had to extend or enforce its hen. The debtor, who was in bankruptcy and thus had stayed ah judgments against him, argued that the hen had expired, because the bank…”
In Re Farmer, 81 B.R. 857 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1988).
· cites it 6×
In Re Carter, 125 B.R. 832 (Bankr. D. Kan. 1991).
· cites it 6×
In Re Perry, 425 B.R. 323 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2010).
· cites it 6×
In re Jones, 544 B.R. 692 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2016).
· cites it 2×
In Re WorldCom, Inc., 362 B.R. 96 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007).
· cites it 4× ““[I]f the automatic stay is in effect and under state law the time required for the commencement *106 of an enforcement action commences, the state requirement is tolled under 11 U.S.C.A § 108(c).” Baxter Dunaway, The Law of Distressed Real Estate § 60:14 (2006).”
Waldschmidt v. Metals (In Re Ward), 42 B.R. 946 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1984).
· cites it 4× “It thus appears that unless some provision of the Bankruptcy Code changes the outcome required by state law, the lien acquired by the trustee ceased to be enforceable when the 12-month limitation expired.”
In Re Murray, 276 B.R. 869 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2002).
· cites it 2×
In Re Little, 201 B.R. 98 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1996).
· cites it 5×
In Re Wise, 127 B.R. 20 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 1991).
· cites it 4×
Grotting v. Hudson Shipbuilders, Inc., 85 B.R. 568 (W.D. Wash. 1988).
· cites it 3× “Title 11 U.S. C. § 108(c) provides: Except as provided in section 524 of this title, if applicable nonbankruptcy law, an order entered in a nonbankruptcy proceeding, or an agreement fixes a period for commencing or continuing a civil action in a court other than a bankruptcy…”
In Re Burnsed, 224 B.R. 496 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1998).
· cites it 4×
In re Romious, 487 B.R. 883 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2013).
· cites it 3×
In Re Bryant, 120 B.R. 983 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 1990).
· cites it 5×
Palmer v. Internal Revenue Serv. (In Re Palmer), 228 B.R. 880 (6th Cir. BAP 1999).
· cites it 4× “Although § 507(a)(8)(A)(i) does not contain an explicit suspension of its three-year lookback period, it is clear that Congress intended 11 U.S.C § 108(c) and 26 U.S.C. § 6503 (b) and (h) to toll that look-back period during a previous bankruptcy.”
In Re Young, 281 B.R. 74 (Bankr. S.D. Ala. 2001).
· cites it 2×
In re Curley, 572 B.R. 622 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2017).
· cites it 3×
In Re Lobherr, 282 B.R. 912 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2002).
· cites it 2×
In re Bovino, 496 B.R. 492 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2013).
· cites it 2×
In Re Little, 216 B.R. 769 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 1997).
· cites it 7×
In Re North, 128 B.R. 592 (Bankr. D. Vt. 1991).
· cites it 3×
Citizens'nat. Bank of Gastonia, Nc v. Lineberger, 45 F.2d 522 (4th Cir. 1930).
· cites it 2× “A deposit balance is nothing more than a debt owing by the bank to the depositor; and the right to set off such debt against a debt owing by the bankrupt is expressly given by section 68a of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 USCA § 108(a) which provides: "(a) In all cases of mutual debts…”
In Re Hand, 52 B.R. 65 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1985).
· cites it 2×
In Re McKeon, 86 B.R. 350 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1988).
· cites it 3×
In Re Miller, 442 B.R. 621 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2011).
· cites it 2×
In Re Walker, 204 B.R. 812 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1997).
· cites it 3×
In Re Lally, 38 B.R. 622 (Bankr. D. Iowa 1984).
· cites it 2×
In Re Nathan, 98 F. Supp. 686 (S.D. Cal. 1951).
· cites it 2×
Alt v. Alt, 257 So. 3d 873 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017).
· cites it 4×
In Re Deitz, 106 B.R. 236 (Bankr.D. Colo. 1989).
· cites it 7×
In Re Liddle, 75 B.R. 41 (Bankr. D. Mont. 1987).
· cites it 2×
In Re Carver, 61 B.R. 824 (Bankr. D.S.D. 1986).
· cites it 2×
In Re Byker, 64 B.R. 640 (Bankr. D. Iowa 1986).
· cites it 4×
In Re Cowen, 207 B.R. 207 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1997).
· cites it 3×
In Re Cooke, 127 B.R. 784 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 1991).
· cites it 2×
In Re Read, 442 B.R. 839 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2011).
· cites it 2×
In Re Barton, 236 B.R. 613 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 1999).
· cites it 7×
Sabre Farms, Inc. v. Jordan, 717 P.2d 156 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“11USC § 108(a). In this case, the limitation period ended before the bankruptcy filing occurred, so the period was not extended by the filing.”
In Re Henke, 84 B.R. 693 (Bankr. D. Mont. 1988).
“Our conclusion that Section 362(a) does not toll a statutory right to cure periods is also based on the language of 11 U.S. C. § 108(b). Section 108(b) and Section 362(a) are mutually exclusive; anything temporarily stayed under the specific language of Section 108(b) is not…”
In Re Avila, 228 B.R. 63 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1999).
· cites it 2×
In Re Dodson, 191 B.R. 869 (Bankr. D. Or. 1996).
· cites it 2×
In Re Hoppe, 259 B.R. 852 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 2001).
· cites it 3×
E. Cecil Wiley v. Pub. Investors Life Ins. Co., 498 F.2d 101 (5th Cir. 1974).
“After recognizing that state law determines the property rights of the bankrupt, the district court confined its attention to Louisiana Civil Code Articles 2207 through 2216, which deal with “compensation,” and which are at least in potential conflict with the federal doctrine…”
In Re Horton, 302 B.R. 198 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2003).
· cites it 2×
Rapp v. Schmidt (Haw. App. 2025).
· cites it 16× “The HRS § 657-5 20-year repose date is preempted by 11 U.S.C. § 108(c)(2). The Schmidts argue the August 29, 1995 Judgment on Special Verdict became unenforceable on August 29, 2015, and the October 23, 1995 Supplemental Judgment became unenforceable on October 23, 2015, under…”
In Re Fiels, 260 B.R. 362 (Bankr. D. Md. 2001).
· cites it 11×
Oletta Thorpe (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2019).
· cites it 5× “11 US.C. § 108(b). I ENE NII III NIE NID DDI ID IAD IE NABI SEI NDIA INLETS NE II NIN IE IADB ION EE property of the bankruptcy estate, the Court now considers if the redemption period ended pre-petition or post-petition with respect to the Present Case.”
In Re Miller, 444 B.R. 177 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2011).
· cites it 2×
In re Flato, 68 F. Supp. 632 (S.D.N.Y. 1946).
· cites it 2×
In re Nathan, 98 F. Supp. 686 (S.D. Cal. 1951).
· cites it 2×
Michelle Merceri v. Deutsche Bank Ag A/k/a (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “The court granted Deutsche's motion to certify the question of whether the statute of limitations is tolled during a bankruptcy stay.”
the State of Texas // Patrick Cox, for Himself & as Agent for AOC Ranches, LLC; Team Advert. Servs., Inc.; CCLHR Enter., LLC; & VPizza Restaurant 001, LLC v. Patrick Cox, for Himself & as Agent for AOC Ranches, LLC; Team Advert. Servs., Inc.; CCLHR Enter., LLC; & VPizza Restaurant 001, LLC // Cross-Appellee, the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2025).
· cites it 2×
In re Herbert, 170 B.R. 124 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1994).
· cites it 4×
In re Johnson, 513 B.R. 364 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2014).
· cites it 2×
the State of Texas // Patrick Cox, for Himself & as Agent for AOC Ranches, LLC; Team Advert. Servs., Inc.; CCLHR Enter., LLC; & VPizza Restaurant 001, LLC v. Patrick Cox, for Himself & as Agent for AOC Ranches, LLC; Team Advert. Servs., Inc.; CCLHR Enter., LLC; & VPizza Restaurant 001, LLC // Cross-Appellee, the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2025).
Childs (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2026).
In Re Tarullo, 312 B.R. 209 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1999).
· cites it 2×
In re Pagnac, 223 B.R. 185 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1998).
· cites it 2×
— 11 U.S.C. § 108(a) — 9 cases
Citizens'nat. Bank of Gastonia, Nc v. Lineberger, 45 F.2d 522 (4th Cir. 1930).
“A deposit balance is nothing more than a debt owing by the bank to the depositor; and the right to set off such debt against a debt owing by the bankrupt is expressly given by section 68a of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 USCA § 108(a) which provides: "(a) In all cases of mutual debts…”
Waldschmidt v. Metals (In Re Ward), 42 B.R. 946 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1984).
“It thus appears that unless some provision of the Bankruptcy Code changes the outcome required by state law, the lien acquired by the trustee ceased to be enforceable when the 12-month limitation expired.”
Sabre Farms, Inc. v. Jordan, 717 P.2d 156 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“11USC § 108(a). In this case, the limitation period ended before the bankruptcy filing occurred, so the period was not extended by the filing.”
E. Cecil Wiley v. Pub. Investors Life Ins. Co., 498 F.2d 101 (5th Cir. 1974).
“After recognizing that state law determines the property rights of the bankrupt, the district court confined its attention to Louisiana Civil Code Articles 2207 through 2216, which deal with “compensation,” and which are at least in potential conflict with the federal doctrine…”
— 11 U.S.C. § 108(b) — 3 cases
In Re Henke, 84 B.R. 693 (Bankr. D. Mont. 1988).
“Our conclusion that Section 362(a) does not toll a statutory right to cure periods is also based on the language of 11 U.S. C. § 108(b). Section 108(b) and Section 362(a) are mutually exclusive; anything temporarily stayed under the specific language of Section 108(b) is not…”
Oletta Thorpe (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2019).
“11 US.C. § 108(b). I ENE NII III NIE NID DDI ID IAD IE NABI SEI NDIA INLETS NE II NIN IE IADB ION EE property of the bankruptcy estate, the Court now considers if the redemption period ended pre-petition or post-petition with respect to the Present Case.”
— 11 U.S.C. § 108(c) — 18 cases
Rogers v. Corrosion Prods., Inc., 42 F.3d 292 (5th Cir. 1995).
“In Morton, a bank that had a hen on the debtor’s property faced the end of the state ten-year period in which it had to extend or enforce its hen. The debtor, who was in bankruptcy and thus had stayed ah judgments against him, argued that the hen had expired, because the bank…”
Palmer v. Internal Revenue Serv. (In Re Palmer), 228 B.R. 880 (6th Cir. BAP 1999).
“Although § 507(a)(8)(A)(i) does not contain an explicit suspension of its three-year lookback period, it is clear that Congress intended 11 U.S.C § 108(c) and 26 U.S.C. § 6503 (b) and (h) to toll that look-back period during a previous bankruptcy.”
Grotting v. Hudson Shipbuilders, Inc., 85 B.R. 568 (W.D. Wash. 1988).
“Title 11 U.S. C. § 108(c) provides: Except as provided in section 524 of this title, if applicable nonbankruptcy law, an order entered in a nonbankruptcy proceeding, or an agreement fixes a period for commencing or continuing a civil action in a court other than a bankruptcy…”
In Re WorldCom, Inc., 362 B.R. 96 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007).
““[I]f the automatic stay is in effect and under state law the time required for the commencement *106 of an enforcement action commences, the state requirement is tolled under 11 U.S.C.A § 108(c).” Baxter Dunaway, The Law of Distressed Real Estate § 60:14 (2006).”
Rapp v. Schmidt (Haw. App. 2025).
“The HRS § 657-5 20-year repose date is preempted by 11 U.S.C. § 108(c)(2). The Schmidts argue the August 29, 1995 Judgment on Special Verdict became unenforceable on August 29, 2015, and the October 23, 1995 Supplemental Judgment became unenforceable on October 23, 2015, under…”
— 11 U.S.C. § 108(c)(1) — 1 case
— 11 U.S.C. § 108(c)(2) — 1 case
Rapp v. Schmidt (Haw. App. 2025).
“The HRS § 657-5 20-year repose date is preempted by 11 U.S.C. § 108(c)(2). The Schmidts argue the August 29, 1995 Judgment on Special Verdict became unenforceable on August 29, 2015, and the October 23, 1995 Supplemental Judgment became unenforceable on October 23, 2015, under…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.