28 U.S.C. § 2075
Bankruptcy rules
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, 532 B.R. 774 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2015).
In re Tallerico, 532 B.R. 774 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2015). “The Bankruptcy Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2075 , forbids rules that alter substantive rights.”
Caudill v. N.C. Mach., Inc. (In Re Am. Eagle Mfg., Inc.), 231 B.R. 320 (9th Cir. BAP 1999). “As such, it is in clear violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2075 , and is therefore invalid.”
Zedan v. Habash, 529 F.3d 398 (7th Cir. 2008). “" See 28 U.S.C. § 2075 ; see also Term Loan Holder Comm.”
In Re Moses Hill, Debtor. Phelix Jones, Creditors v. Moses Hill, Debtor, 811 F.2d 484 (9th Cir. 1987). “On October 17, 1985, the present appeal was filed.”
Tennessee Student Assistance Corp. v. Hood, 541 U.S. 440 (2004). “28 U. S. C. § 2075 ("[The Bankruptcy Rules] shall not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right").”
Indus. Fin. Corp. v. Falk (In Re Falk), 96 B.R. 901 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1989). “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), 323 B.R. 732 (9th Cir. BAP 2005). “28 U.S.C. § 2075 (repealed 1979). As noted later in this concurrence, Rule 403(c) merely restated settled decisional law.”
Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004). “” 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, 87 B.R. 408 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1988). “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), 406 B.R. 1 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2009). “” 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-Appellant, 734 F.2d 1094 (5th Cir. 1984). “” 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, Tr. v. First Nat'l Bank of Louisville, 829 F.2d 596 (1st Cir. 1987). “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…”
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.