Search for: "In Re: B.R.-2"
Results 361 - 380
of 570
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jan 2011, 12:22 am
See In re Pak, 343 B.R. 239 (Bankr. [read post]
22 Jan 2011, 6:05 pm
Particularly instructive in this case is the following from Zick: We believe the following language from In re Krohn, 886 F.2d 123 (6th Cir. 1989), aff'g 87 B.R. 926 (Bankr. [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 10:01 pm
Rules of Court, Rules 4:44-1 and 4:44-2. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 5:13 pm
See In re Adell, 321 B.R. 562, 571-72 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.2005). [read post]
29 Dec 2010, 9:52 am
(In re Mwangi), 432 B.R. 812 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2010). [read post]
29 Dec 2010, 9:39 am
See In re: The Deli Den, LLC, 425 B.R. 725 (Bankr. [read post]
27 Nov 2010, 11:15 am
In re Vasques, 337 B.R. 255. [read post]
18 Nov 2010, 12:37 pm
Rule 81(c)(2).We decided to take a look. [read post]
17 Nov 2010, 10:43 pm
Frank, 97 Or App 347, 775 P2d 923 (1989), see also the case of In Re Daraee 279 B.R. 853, a 2002 Oregon Bankruptcy Court opinion. [read post]
15 Nov 2010, 8:12 pm
Fla. 1996); In re Steenstra, 307 B.R. 732 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2004); In re Beam, 192 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 1999); In re Brown, 280 B.R. 231 (Bkrtcy. [read post]
15 Nov 2010, 8:12 pm
The case, In re Broward Kitchens & Baths, Inc., ___ B.R. ____ (Bankr. [read post]
9 Nov 2010, 9:18 pm
He is likely to succeed on the merits; and… 2. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 11:54 am
SeeIn re Asia Global Crossing, Ltd., 322 B.R. 247, 256 (Bankr. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 5:11 am
Credit, LLC (In re Dean), 359 B.R. 218, 221 (Bankr. [read post]
18 Oct 2010, 9:30 am
Cal. 1974) (“a financial statement filed with the California Secretary of State”); In re Tamis, 398 B.R. 124, 126 (Bankr. [read post]
15 Oct 2010, 12:54 pm
See Philadelphia Newspapers, 599 F.3d at 312; In re The Pacific Lumber Co., 584 F.3d 229, 246 (5th Cir. 2009); In re CRIIMI MAE, Inc., 251 B.R. 796, 806-07 (Bankr. [read post]
11 Oct 2010, 12:27 pm
Co.) 84 F.3d 1330, 1335 (10th Cir. 1996); In re Bayou Group, LLC, 396 B.R. 810, 843-49 (Bankr. [read post]
15 Sep 2010, 8:34 am
There is case law support for the notion that an obligation payable directly to a third party and not to the spouse does not fit within the definition of 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(15), In re Forgette, 379 B.R. 621 (Bankr. [read post]
31 Aug 2010, 4:49 am
E.D.N.Y. 2009)In re McCollum, 415 B.R. 625 (Bankr. [read post]
25 Aug 2010, 8:46 am
” In re Laskin, 222 B.R. 872 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1998). [read post]