28 U.S.C. § 2075

Bankruptcy rules

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe by general rules, the forms of process, writs, pleadings, and motions, and the practice and procedure in cases under title 11.

Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right.

The Supreme Court shall transmit to Congress not later than May 1 of the year in which a rule prescribed under this section is to become effective a copy of the proposed rule. The rule shall take effect no earlier than December 1 of the year in which it is transmitted to Congress unless otherwise provided by law.

The bankruptcy rules promulgated under this section shall prescribe a form for the statement required under section 707(b)(2)(C) of title 11 and may provide general rules on the content of such statement.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 573 cases (37 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: In re Tallerico

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In re Tallerico (2015) caeb · cites it 8× “The Bankruptcy Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2075 , forbids rules that alter substantive rights.”

Caudill v. N.C. MacHinery, Inc. (In Re American Eagle Mfg., Inc.) (1999) bap9 · cites it 16× “As such, it is in clear violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2075 , and is therefore invalid.”

Zedan v. Habash (2008) ca7 · cites it 4× “" See 28 U.S.C. § 2075 ; see also Term Loan Holder Comm.”

In Re Moses Hill, Debtor. Phelix Jones, Creditors v. Moses Hill, Debtor (1987) ca9 · cites it 5× “On October 17, 1985, the present appeal was filed.”

Tennessee Student Assistance Corporation v. Hood (2004) scotus · cites it 2× “28 U. S. C. § 2075 ("[The Bankruptcy Rules] shall not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right").”

Industrial Financial Corp. v. Falk (In Re Falk) (1989) mnb · cites it 8× “Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2075 , Congress has vested authority in the Supreme Court of the United States to prescribe rules governing procedure and practice in bankruptcy cases and proceedings.”

Gonzales v. Davis (In Re Davis) (2005) bap9 · cites it 4× “28 U.S.C. § 2075 (repealed 1979). As noted later in this concurrence, Rule 403(c) merely restated settled decisional law.”

Kontrick v. Ryan (2004) scotus “” 28 U. S. C. § 2075 ; cf. § 2072 (similarly providing for Court-prescribed “rules of practice and procedure” for cases in the federal district courts and courts of appeals).”

In Re Walat (1988) vaeb · cites it 12× “This Court's authority to promulgate rules of practice and procedure is a derivative power that stems from 28 U.S.C. § 2075 , by which Congress delegated to the Supreme Court "the power to prescribe by general rules, the forms of process, writs, pleadings, and motions, and the…”

Morse v. Perrotta (In Re Perrotta) (2009) nhb · cites it 10× “” 28 U.S.C. § 2075 . But the rules “shall not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right.”

In the Matter of Ray Bryan ADAMS, Jr., Bankrupt. Z.D. BONNER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ray Bryan ADAMS, Jr., Defendant-App (1984) ca5 · cites it 4× “” Finally, the court’s bankruptcy rulemaking power is limited by the Bankruptcy Rule Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2075 . 9 Thus, a local rule must be procedural, and cannot abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right.”

In Re C.H. Butcher, Jr., Debtor. James R. Martin, Trustee v. First National Bank of Louisville (1987) ca1 · cites it 4× “This he argues is consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 2075 (1982), which empowers the United States Supreme Court “to prescribe by general rules, the forms of process, writs, pleadings, and motions and the practice and procedure in cases under Title 11,” but prohibits the application of…”

Show all 573 citing cases →

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.