Stern v. Marshall: A Legal and Personal Overview
|
|
- Avice McDaniel
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Stern v. Marshall: A Legal and Personal Overview By Kent L. Richland 5900 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, California (310) / Fax: (310)
2 Stern v. Marshall: A Legal and Personal Overview A. Before The Supreme Court Proceedings. To appreciate the holding and impact of Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S., 131 S.Ct (2011), it s important to understand both the state of the law before the case got to the Supreme Court and the history of the case itself. In this section, I will start by describing the status of Article III law before the Court granted certiorari in Stern, and then give the background of what happened in the Stern case itself before it reached the Supreme Court. Stern was the Supreme Court s follow-on to Northern Pipeline Construction Co. Inc. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982) (Marathon), the 1982 case in which the Court invalidated the Bankruptcy Act of 1978 as violative of Article III of the Constitution. In Marathon, the Court had focused on the 1978 Act s creation of bankruptcy courts, which were broadly empowered to hear and decide all civil proceedings arising under the Bankruptcy Code or related to cases under the Bankruptcy Code. The problem was that bankruptcy court judges were not Article III judges: Rather than being appointed for life with fixed salaries as Article III required, bankruptcy judges were appointed for fixed terms and their salaries could be adjusted by Congress. Since only lifetimeappointed, fixed-salary judges could constitutionally wield the judicial Power of the United States under Article III, the Marathon court faced the question whether the 1979 Act unconstitutionally authorized bankruptcy judges to exercise the judicial power of the United States. A splintered Supreme Court held that, because the bankruptcy courts related to jurisdiction permitted bankruptcy judges to finally decide traditional 1
3 common-law actions lawsuits that were the bread and butter of federal judges dockets and hence the essence of the federal judicial power the 1979 Act violated Article III. Although six justices agreed with the result, no single opinion drew a five-justice majority. Three justices in dissent explained they would subject the 1979 Act to a balancing test to determine the extent to which the Act actually infringed Article III values. The dissenters would have held the Act constitutional because (1) all bankruptcy court judgments were subject to appellate review by Article III courts; (2) there was no indication the Act was an attempt by the political branches to seize power from the judiciary; and (3) the congressional goal motivating the creation of the bankruptcy courts was a worthy one to deal with the flood of bankruptcy cases that threatened to overwhelm the Article III courts. Two post-marathon cases seemed to suggest that the Court was moving away from strict, formal application of Article III and closer to the balancing test urged by the Marathon dissenters. Thomas v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co., 473 U.S.568 (1985) considered the constitutionality under Article III of a federal statute that required binding arbitration, with limited appellate review, of disputes among pesticide manufacturers regulated by a federal pesticide statute. The Court upheld the statute using a balancing test, noting that it presented little danger of congressional or executive encroachment on Article III judicial powers and provided for limited Article III review of the arbitration decision. Next came Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833 (1986). At issue in Schor was the constitutionality of a statute that empowered the Commission to adjudicate claims of customers of commodity brokers that the brokers had violated securities laws. An important feature of the statute was 2
4 that it permitted the accused broker to counterclaim against the customer for any asserted wrongs related to the customer s claim. In Schor, the broker s counterclaim was for money he claimed was owed by the customer what would have been a traditional common-law claim analogous to the matter at issue in Marathon and the customer argued that adjudication of the counterclaim before the Commission violated Article III and Marathon. Since the customer had chosen to pursue the claims against the broker before the Commission rather than in court, the Supreme Court analyzed the Article III issue in the context of the issue of consent. The Court held that to the extent Article III rights were personal and belonged to the litigant, the customer had effectively consented to the Commission s jurisdiction over the counterclaim by bringing the case there in the first instance. But the Court noted that to the extent Article III constituted a structural, separation-of-powers guarantee that served as an essential part of the governmental system of checks and balances, it could not be waived by a party. As to that aspect of the Article III question, the Court again applied a balancing test. Concluding that the scheme posed minimal threat to Article III values, while at the same time evaluating the legislative goal of providing prompt and expeditious determination of specific kinds of disputes as an important one, the Court held there was no Article III violation. That was the state of Supreme Court Article III jurisprudence when, in 2001, I first became involved in the case that was then called Marshall v. Marshall. The history of that case is a bit convoluted, but important for a full understanding of the Court s eventual ruling. 3
5 Our firm, an appellate boutique, was brought into the Marshall case when it was in its last stages in a California federal district court and an appeal to the 9 th Circuit was anticipated. The case was notorious. It had arisen out of a dispute between model/actress Anna Nicole Smith (Anna) and Texas oil billionaire E. Pierce Marshall (Pierce) over millions in assets that had been owned by J. Howard Marshall II (Howard) Ms. Smith s late husband and father of Pierce. The case s trip to the district court had been circuitous. When Howard had died, Pierce opened up a probate in a Texas court, where Howard s will revealed that he had left his entire estate to Pierce and nothing to Anna. Anna claimed that Pierce had tortiously interfered with Howard s attempt to set up a substantial trust for her benefit during his lifetime. While the Texas probate action proceeded in fits and starts, Anna declared bankruptcy in California. Pierce filed a claim against Anna s estate in the California bankruptcy court, asserting that she had defamed him by falsely accusing him in the press of tampering with his father s assets to frustrate Howard s efforts to set up the trust for Anna. In addition to asserting truth as a defense to Pierce s defamation claim, Anna filed a compulsory counterclaim alleging, as she had in Texas, that Pierce had tortiously interfered with Howard s efforts to set up a trust for her benefit. The cases proceeded in parallel in both Texas and California. The California bankruptcy court ruled first. It granted summary judgment to Anna on Pierce s defamation claim, and then went on to try Anna s tortious interference counterclaim. It found that Howard had instructed his lawyers to create an inter vivos trust for Anna s benefit that was to consist of one-half the 4
6 increase in value of his assets during their marriage, but Pierce had tortiously interfered with the formation of that trust. It awarded Anna $449 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages. Pierce appealed the bankruptcy court judgment to the district court and, at about the same time, Anna dismissed her Texas claims against Pierce; however, the Texas court continued to adjudicate the validity of Howard s will. The California federal district court conducted a trial de novo of Anna s tortious interference claim and found that the evidence was overwhelming that Pierce had interfered with the creation of Howard s intended trust for Anna. It also concluded that while compensatory damages should be reduced to $44.3 million, the evidence of Pierce s willfulness, maliciousness and fraud required that punitive damages be increased to $44.3 million. While post-trial matters were being completed in the Calfornia court, the Texas probate court concluded its trial and entered a judgment finding Howard s will valid as well as entering findings inconsistent with those that had been made by the California courts. About two weeks after the Texas probate court entered its judgment against Anna, the California district court entered its multimillion dollar judgment in favor of Anna. From the outset of my firm s involvement, it was clear that the case had an Article III issue. It stemmed from Pierce s claim that, because the Texas probate court judgment was inconsistent with the federal district court judgment and had preceded it in time, it was preclusive of the latter on collateral estoppel grounds. Our counterargument was that the judgment of the bankruptcy court, which was entered long before the probate court had ruled, was the first final judgment in time. But Pierce s answer to our counterargument was to point to the holding in 5
7 Marathon: Pierce argued Anna s counterclaim for tortious interference was just like the traditional common-law claim that the Supreme Court had held in Marathon could not, consistent with Article III, be adjudicated by a bankruptcy court. Therefore, he claimed, the first valid final judgment was that of the Texas probate court. B. In the Supreme Court. While we thought from the beginning that the Article III issue was a close one that might even have Supreme Court potential, we were surprised when the 9 th Circuit never reached the issue because it reversed Anna s judgment on an entirely different ground that the judgment violated the obscure, highly technical probate exception to federal jurisdiction. And we were more than doubly surprised when the Supreme Court granted our certiorari petition seeking review of that ruling. The day of that argument in the Supreme Court was memorable. The lines for a seat in the Court snaked around the block, and one court observer said the crowds were the biggest since the Roe v. Wade argument. The media had had a good time conjuring up the incongruous image of the reality TV star appearing before the Supreme Court, but when Anna Nicole Smith arrived at the Court she looked strikingly beautiful and dignified. The argument itself was relatively uneventful, as it became clear after the first few minutes that the Court was entirely on Anna s side of the issue. But those first few minutes yielded one personally indelible event. In preparing for the argument, I had consulted a number of lawyers who had argued many cases before the high court, and one particularly respected advocate advised me to lead off with one of our several arguments that he considered particularly strong. 6
8 I took his advice, but I was immediately peppered with questions from Justice Scalia indicating that he, at least, was not buying it. As I valiantly attempted to defend the position, Justice Scalia looked over his glasses at me and said, Do you want to stand on this position, Mr. Richland, or do you have a lesser position that... that might cause you to win? It was classic Scalia. I took the hint and moved on to other arguments, and it was smooth sailing from then on. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, and we were sent back to the 9 th Circuit. The same 9 th Circuit panel predictably reversed again it was not favorably disposed to either our client or her recovery this time relying on the Article III/preclusion ground. And when the Supreme Court granted certiorari a second time, it was not quite so surprising. The oral argument was very different this time around. Pierce had died shortly after the first Supreme Court decision had issued, and Anna died a few months later. Now it was two estates battling each other. Although there was still a lot of money at stake, and the legal issue before the Court was far more important than the first time, the absence of celebrity made for a much lower-key event. The argument itself left few clues to the eventual outcome both sides got tough questions. On one of the last days of the term, the Court issued its opinion, a bankruptcy law blockbuster that resurrected the Marathon court s emphasis on the structural, separation-of-powers importance of Article III. In a 5-4 opinion that broke along familiar political lines (despite the absence of any overtly political aspect to the issue), the Court held that in general, Congress may not withdraw from judicial cognizance any matter which, from its nature, is the subject of a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty.... Thus, to the 7
9 extent the bankruptcy law authorized non-article III bankruptcy judges to decide ordinary, common-law civil claims even when brought as a compulsory counterclaims it violated Article III. Chief Justice Roberts majority opinion dismissed the post-marathon balancing test cases as simply involving the determination of issues by an expert government agency seeking a limited regulatory objective within the agency s authority. Justice Breyer s dissent, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, urged the application of a balancing test akin to the one applied in Thomas and Schor. Weighing a number of factors, the dissent concluded that bankruptcy court determination of compulsory counterclaims intruded minimally on Article III concerns, while it was essential to an efficient bankruptcy system tasked with restructuring debtor-creditor relations. Finally, the dissent predicted that, despite the majority s insistence that its ruling does not change all that much, the decision would have a tremendously disruptive effect on the bankruptcy courts. The dissent s final warning would prove prophetic. C. After the Supreme Court. Stern v. Marshall hit the bankruptcy courts hard. Whatever else it might have meant, one unmistakable message of the majority opinion was that there could be no confidence that the functions assigned by Congress to the bankruptcy courts would necessarily pass constitutional muster. Stern issues proliferated, and significant confusion reigned. Three issues in particular begged for resolution: 8
10 First, under prevailing bankruptcy statutes, bankruptcy courts were authorized to adjudicate many common-law claims involving bankruptcy estates by virtue of the mutual consent of the parties. But as the Schor case had made clear, the structural aspect of Article III cannot be waived by consent. How did the Stern majority s rejection of the Schor balancing test affect the ability of parties to consent to bankruptcy court adjudication of common-law claims? Second, what were bankruptcy courts supposed to do with what came to be known as Stern claims claims the bankruptcy courts were authorized by statute to decide, but which they could not constitutionally adjudicate under Stern. The bankruptcy statutes did expressly provide that as to certain specific types of claims that could not be finally decided by bankruptcy courts, the bankruptcy judge was to make factual findings and recommended dispositions that were not binding on district courts; but Stern claims were not among those so provided for by statute. Could bankruptcy courts handle them that way anyway, even without such statutory authorization? Third, a substantial portion of bankruptcy courts dockets are devoted to determining fraudulent conveyance claims claims that the debtor improperly disposed of assets before declaring bankruptcy when those assets should have been included the bankruptcy estate, available to satisfy the claims of the creditors. In 1989, in Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33 (1989), the Supreme Court had held that the parties to a fraudulent conveyance action were constitutionally entitled to a jury trial, because such actions were quintessentially suits at common law. After Stern, and in light of Granfinanciera, could bankruptcy courts continue to finally adjudicate fraudulent conveyance actions? 9
11 These and related issues embroiled the bankruptcy courts in the years following Stern. As for the Stern v. Marshall case itself, the Supreme Court s ruling affirmed the judgment of the 9 th Circuit, which in turn had reversed the $89 million district court judgment in favor of Anna (now Anna s estate). The 9 th Circuit s holding that the Texas probate court judgment was preclusive seemed to bring an end to the litigation. But remarkably, in 2015, a Texas court of appeals handed down a startling decision: It modified the decade-old Texas probate court judgment ruling on Howard s will by striking some of the key findings that the 9 th Circuit had held were preclusive of the judgment in favor of Anna, concluding that any questions of Pierce s liability for tortious interference were not properly before the probate court and should not have been decided by it. Whether the Texas appellate court s decision ends up being simply an ironic footnote to this remarkable case or a route to its reopening remains to be seen. 10
In The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 13-935 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- WELLNESS INTERNATIONAL
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation and Finance Departments. Supreme Court Limits Reach of Non-Article III Courts Jurisdiction
Number 1210 July 5, 2011 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation and Finance Departments Supreme Court Limits Reach of Non-Article III Courts Jurisdiction Under Article III, the judicial power of the
More informationSUMMARY OF STERN v. MARSHALL. The rigid core/noncore dichotomy of bankruptcy proceedings is now very blurry. In
SUMMARY OF STERN v. MARSHALL The rigid core/noncore dichotomy of bankruptcy proceedings is now very blurry. In Stern v. Marshall, the Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Court lacked authority under
More informationStern v. Marshall: The Constitutional Limits of Bankruptcy Jurisdiction, Redux. Dhrumil Patel 1
Stern v. Marshall: The Constitutional Limits of Bankruptcy Jurisdiction, Redux Dhrumil Patel 1 In January of this year, the Supreme Court will consider the scope of bankruptcy jurisdiction in place since
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 564 U. S. (2011) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 10 179 HOWARD K. STERN, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF VICKIE LYNN MARSHALL, PETITIONER v. ELAINE T. MARSHALL, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF E.
More informationStern v. Marshall Digging for Gold and Shaking the Foundation of Bankruptcy Courts (or Not)
Louisiana Law Review Volume 72 Number 3 Spring 2012 Stern v. Marshall Digging for Gold and Shaking the Foundation of Bankruptcy Courts (or Not) Katie Drell Grissel Repository Citation Katie Drell Grissel,
More informationAnalysis of Decision by the United States Supreme Court in Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, U.S. (May 26, 2015) 1
Analysis of Decision by the United States Supreme Court in Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, U.S. (May 26, 2015) 1 Judith Greenstone Miller Paul R. Hage 2015 All Rights Reserved Jaffe Raitt
More informationSupreme Court Rules on Bankruptcy Courts Authority, Leaves Key Question Unanswered
Westlaw Journal bankruptcy Litigation News and Analysis Legislation Regulation Expert Commentary VOLUME 11, issue 7 / july 31, 2014 Expert Analysis Supreme Court Rules on Bankruptcy Courts Authority, Leaves
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 10-179 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States -------------------------------- --------------------------------- HOWARD K. STERN,
More informationA Bankruptcy Primer for the Practitioner
PRESENTED AT 2018 Fundamentals of Oil, Gas and Mineral Law April 19, 2018 Houston, TX A Bankruptcy Primer for the Practitioner W. John English Jr. Eric R. Goodman Author Contact Information: Eric R. Goodman
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS EASTERN DIVISION
Document Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS EASTERN DIVISION In re JESSICA CURELOP MILLER, Debtor Chapter 7 Case No. 09 15324 FJB JESSICA CURELOP MILLER, Plaintiff v.
More informationSTATE LAW CLAIMS AND ARTICLE III IN Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. CT (2011)
STATE LAW CLAIMS AND ARTICLE III IN Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. CT. 2594 (2011) Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution vests the judicial Power of the United States in courts whose judges shall hold
More informationLitigant Consent: The Missing Link for Permissible Jurisdiction for Final Judgment in Non-Article III Courts after Stern v.
Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law Volume 20 Issue 4 Article 8 2012 Litigant Consent: The Missing Link for Permissible Jurisdiction for Final Judgment in Non-Article III Courts after Stern v. Marshall
More informationPROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 28 U.S.C. 157 AND 158 IN RESPONSE TO STERN v. MARSHALL, 131 S. Ct (2011)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 28 U.S.C. 157 AND 158 IN RESPONSE TO STERN v. MARSHALL, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011) Approved by the National Bankruptcy Conference 2012 Annual Meeting November 9, 2012 Proposed Amendments
More informationRESPONDING TO STERN V. MARSHALL
RESPONDING TO STERN V. MARSHALL ABSTRACT Stern v. Marshall is the most recent decision in a series of cases decided by the Supreme Court that involves the doctrine of public rights. The Court found that
More information2 The Bankruptcy System
2 The Bankruptcy System 2.01 THE BANKRUPTCY COURT 2.01(a) Introduction The bankruptcy court system enacted by the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984 ( BAFJA ), Pub. L. No. 98-353,
More informationNotes on a Venture to the Supreme Court: Thomas Linde and Denice Moewes Share their Experiences on In Re: Bellingham Insurance Agency
Notes on a Venture to the Supreme Court: Thomas Linde and Denice Moewes Share their Experiences on In Re: Bellingham Insurance Agency King County Bar Association, 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700, Seattle
More informationCHAPTER 9. The Judiciary
CHAPTER 9 The Judiciary The Nature of the Judicial System Introduction: Two types of cases: Criminal Law: The government charges an individual with violating one or more specific laws. Civil Law: The court
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 10-179 In the Supreme Court of the United States HOWARD K. STERN, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF VICKIE LYNN MARSHALL, PETITIONER v. ELAINE T. MARSHALL, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF E. PIERCE MARSHALL ON
More informationCase DWH Doc 171 Filed 09/12/11 Entered 09/12/11 10:58:41 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 18
Document Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI IN RE: OXFORD EXPOSITIONS, LLC CASE NO. 10-16218-DWH OXFORD EXPOSITIONS, LLC, EDWIN E. MEEK, and JENNIFER ROBINSON
More informationStern v. Marshall: The Earthquake That Hit the Bankruptcy Courts and the Aftershocks That Followed
Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Law Reviews 1-1-2012 Stern v. Marshall: The Earthquake
More informationNON-ARTICLE III ADJUDICATION: BANKRUPTCY AND NONBANKRUPTCY, WITH AND WITHOUT LITIGANT CONSENT
NON-ARTICLE III ADJUDICATION: BANKRUPTCY AND NONBANKRUPTCY, WITH AND WITHOUT LITIGANT CONSENT Ralph Brubaker INTRODUCTION... 13 I. THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF NON-ARTICLE III CONSENT ADJUDICATIONS BANKRUPTCY
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-1200 In the Supreme Court of the United States EXECUTIVE BENEFITS INSURANCE AGENCY, PETITIONER, v. PETER H. ARKISON, TRUSTEE, SOLELY IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF BELLINGHAM
More information7 Saint Paul Street Baltimore, MD Phone: Fax:
2018 Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLP David Daneman Partner 7 Saint Paul Street Baltimore, MD 21202-1636 Phone: 410.347.8729 Fax: 410.234.2317 Email: ddaneman@wtplaw.com Experience Mr. Daneman, a partner
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA BRIEF ON JURISDICTION OF RESPONDENT, EDWARD A. SCHILLING
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA MARIA HERRERA, Petitioner, Case No.: SC07-839 v. EDWARD A. SCHILLING Respondent. BRIEF ON JURISDICTION OF RESPONDENT, EDWARD A. SCHILLING On Discretionary Review from the
More information2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115, restricts citation of unpublished opinions in California courts. Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3,
More informationWhen is a ruling truly final?
When is a ruling truly final? When is a ruling truly final? Ryan B. McCrum at Jones Day considers the Fresenius v Baxter ruling and its potential impact on patent litigation in the US. In a case that could
More informationThree Provocative Business Bankruptcy Decisions of 2018
Alert Three Provocative Business Bankruptcy Decisions of 2018 June 25, 2018 The appellate courts are usually the last stop for parties in business bankruptcy cases. The courts issued at least three provocative,
More informationUnderstanding Legal Terminology in NFA Arbitration Cases
Understanding Legal Terminology in NFA Arbitration Cases November 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction...1 Authority to Sue...3 Standing...3 Assignment...3 Power of Attorney...3 Multiple Parties or Claims...4
More informationCommon law reasoning and institutions Civil and Criminal Procedure (England and Wales) Litigation U.S.
Litigation U.S. Just Legal Services - Scuola di Formazione Legale Via Laghetto, 3 20122 Milano Comparing England and Wales and the U.S. Just Legal Services - Scuola di Formazione Legale Via Laghetto, 3
More informationTopic 7 The Judicial Branch. Section One The National Judiciary
Topic 7 The Judicial Branch Section One The National Judiciary Under the Articles of Confederation Under the Articles of Confederation, there was no national judiciary. All courts were State courts Under
More informationThe Federal Courts. Chapter 16
The Federal Courts Chapter 16 3 HISTORICAL ERAS OF INFLUENCE 1787-1865 Political Nation building (legitimacy of govt.) Slavery 1865-1937 Economic Govt. roll in economy Great Depression 1937-Present Ideological
More informationWhat s So Special About Treaty Arbitration?: U.S. Supreme Court Confronts Its First International Investment Treaty Arbitration Case
What s So Special About Treaty Arbitration?: U.S. Supreme Court Confronts Its First International Investment Treaty Arbitration Case BY IGOR V. TIMOFEYEV, JOSEPH R. PROFAIZER & DANIEL PRINCE December 2013
More informationGlossary of Terms for Business Law and Ethics
Glossary of Terms for Business Law and Ethics MBA 625, Patten University Abusive/Intimidating Behavior Physical threats, false accusations, being annoying, profanity, insults, yelling, harshness, ignoring
More informationCopyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman
Chapter 16: The Federal Courts The Nature of the Judicial System The Structure of the Federal Judicial System The Politics of Judicial Selection The Backgrounds of Judges and Justices The Courts as Policymakers
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 547 U. S. (2006) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationConsent, Coercion, and Bankruptcy Administration
Journal of Business & Technology Law Volume 11 Issue 1 Article 3 Consent, Coercion, and Bankruptcy Administration S. Todd Brown Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/jbtl
More informationWarm Up: Review Activity Declare your Powers
Mr. Cegielski S E C T I O N 1 The National Judiciary ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS: Why did the Constitution create a national judiciary? What is the structure of the national judiciary? What criteria are used to
More informationFrom Stem to Stern: Navigating Bankruptcy Practice after Stern v. Marshall
Missouri Law Review Volume 77 Issue 4 Article 6 Fall 2012 From Stem to Stern: Navigating Bankruptcy Practice after Stern v. Marshall Michelle Wright Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr
More informationCase jpk Doc 38 Filed 06/27/12 Page 1 of 10
Case 12-02002-jpk Doc 38 Filed 06/27/12 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION IN RE: ) ) MERRILLVILLE SURGERY CENTER, LLC, ) CASE NO. 10-20005 ) Chapter
More informationHyungjoo Han INTRODUCTION
REDEFINING NON-ARTICLE III ADJUDICATORY AUTHORITY POST-STERN V. MARSHALL Hyungjoo Han INTRODUCTION In 2011, the Supreme Court in Stern v. Marshall ruled that bankruptcy courts, as adjuncts of Article III
More informationChapter Outline and Learning Objectives. Chapter Outline and Learning Objectives. Chapter Outline and Learning Objectives
Chapter 16: The Federal Courts The Nature of the Judicial The Politics of Judicial Selection The Backgrounds of Judges and Justices The Courts as Policymakers The Courts and Public Policy: An Understanding
More informationChapter 18 The Judicial Branch
Chapter 18 The Judicial Branch Creation of a National Judiciary The Framers created the national judiciary in Article III of the Constitution. There are two court systems in the United States: the national
More informationLISTE RÉCAPITULATIVE COMMENTÉE DES QUESTIONS À ABORDER PAR LE GROUPE DE TRAVAIL SUR LA RECONNAISSANCE ET L EXÉCUTION DES JUGEMENTS TABLE PAR ARTICLES
EXÉCUTION DES JUGEMENTS ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS Liste récapitulative commentée Annexe II Annotated Checklist Annex II janvier / January 2013 LISTE RÉCAPITULATIVE COMMENTÉE DES QUESTIONS À ABORDER PAR
More informationOMA Government Affairs Committee September 28, 2011
COLUMBUS I CLEVELAND CINCINNATI-DAYTON BRICKER & ECKLER LLP 100 South Third Street Columbus, Ohio 43215-4291 MAIN: 614.227.2300 FAX: 614.227.2390 Miranda C. Motter 614.227.4810 mmotter@bricker.com I. Tort
More informationBANKRUPTCY AND THE SUPREME COURT by Kenneth N. Klee (LexisNexis 2009)
BANKRUPTCY AND THE SUPREME COURT by Kenneth N. Klee (LexisNexis 2009) Excerpt from Chapter 6, pages 439 46 LANDMARK CASES The Supreme Court cases of the past 111 years range in importance from relatively
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued July 14, 2015 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-02-00114-CV HOWARD STERN AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF VICKIE LYNN MARSHALL, Appellant V. ELAINE MARSHALL AS INDEPENDENT
More informationColeman & Horowitt, LLP CLIENT MEMORANDUM. Discussing Issues of Interest to our Clients COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING COLLECTIONS
Coleman & Horowitt, LLP CLIENT MEMORANDUM Discussing Issues of Interest to our Clients 499 West Shaw Avenue, Suite 116, Fresno, California 93704 Phone: (559) 248-4820 Fax: (559) 248-4830 1880 Century Park
More informationV. JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
V. JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT As originally enacted, the Code gave bankruptcy courts pervasive jurisdiction, despite the fact that bankruptcy judges do not enjoy the protections
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 556 U. S. (2009) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 07 615 MINISTRY OF DEFENSE AND SUPPORT FOR THE ARMED FORCES OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, PETITIONER v. DARIUSH ELAHI ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, SHANNON L. BROWN n/k/a SHANNON L. HAYES v.
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2202 September Term, 2015 SHANNON L. BROWN n/k/a SHANNON L. HAYES v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC. t/a SANTANDER AUTO FINANCE Friedman, *Krauser,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION
Lee v. Anasti Doc. 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION IN RE: C/A No.: 3:10-196 Gina Anasti Lee, ORDER Debtor. This matter comes before the court
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 09-10355 Document: 00511232038 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/13/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D September 13, 2010
More informationCHAPTER 18:3 Supreme Court
CHAPTER 18:3 Supreme Court Chapter 18:3 o We will examine the reasons why the Supreme Court is often called the higher court. o We will examine why judicial review is a key feature in the American System
More informationCONTENTS. How to use the Lake Charles City Court...2. What is the Lake Charles City Court?...2. Who may sue in Lake Charles City Court?...
CONTENTS Page How to use the Lake Charles City Court...2 What is the Lake Charles City Court?...2 Who may sue in Lake Charles City Court?...3 Who may be sued in Lake Charles City Court?...3 What kind of
More informationCase Document 763 Filed in TXSB on 11/06/18 Page 1 of 18
Case 18-30197 Document 763 Filed in TXSB on 11/06/18 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION In re: Chapter 11 LOCKWOOD HOLDINGS, INC., et
More informationBUSINESS BANKRUPTCY COMMITTEE TO PRESENT PROGRAM ON THE SUPREME COURT AT THE 2007 ANNUAL SPRING MEETING
BUSINESS BANKRUPTCY COMMITTEE TO PRESENT PROGRAM ON THE SUPREME COURT AT THE 2007 ANNUAL SPRING MEETING By Samuel R. Maizel, Pachulski Stang Ziehl Young Jones & Weintraub, Los Angeles, California I. Overview
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before TYMKOVICH, BALDOCK, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit December 3, 2007 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT In re: LOG FURNITURE, INC., CARI ALLEN, Debtor.
More informationROY L. REARDON AND MARY ELIZABETH MCGARRY
NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS ROUNDUP FAIR ELECTIONS, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC RELATIONS, AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ROY L. REARDON AND MARY ELIZABETH MCGARRY SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT
More informationBankruptcy Authority Post Stern, Bellingham and Wellness: Navigating the Uncertainties in Claims Litigation
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Bankruptcy Authority Post Stern, Bellingham and Wellness: Navigating the Uncertainties in Claims Litigation THURSDAY, JULY 9, 2015 1pm Eastern 12pm
More informationBrooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law
Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law Volume 11 Issue 1 SYMPOSIUM: The Role of Technology in Compliance in Financial Services: An Indispensable Tool as well as a Threat? Article 9 12-1-2016
More informationArbitration Agreements and Class Actions
Supreme Court Enforces Arbitration Agreement with Class Action Waiver, Narrowing the Scope of Ability to Avoid Such Agreements SUMMARY The United States Supreme Court yesterday continued its rigorous enforcement
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
dno. 10-179 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States HOWARD K. STERN, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF VICKIE LYNN MARSHALL, v. Petitioner, ELAINE T. MARSHALL, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF E. PIERCE MARSHALL,
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-1200 1200 In the Supreme Court of the United States EXECUTIVE BENEFITS INSURANCE AGENCY, PETITIONER v. PETER H. ARKISON, TRUSTEE, SOLELY IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF BELLING-
More informationUnit 4C STUDY GUIDE. The Judiciary. Use the Constitution to answer questions #1-9. Unless noted, all questions are based on Article III.
Unit 4C STUDY GUIDE The Judiciary Use the Constitution to answer questions #1-9. Unless noted, all questions are based on Article III. 1. What power is vested in the courts? 2. The shall extend to all
More informationApril 19, Department of Justice Recommendations on Creation of an Intercircuit Tribunal
TH E WH ITE HOUSE WASHINGTON April 19, 1983 MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING FROM: SUBJEC'l' : JOHN G. ROBERTS~ Department of Justice Recommendations on Creation of an Intercircuit Tribunal Jonathan Rose
More informationCHAPTER 3: JURISDICTION, PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION
CHAPTER 3: JURISDICTION, PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION INTRODUCTION Since the inception of a comprehensive bankruptcy system in the United States nearly a hundred years ago, there has been a constant search
More informationLegal Business. Overview Of Court Procedure. Memoranda on legal and business issues and concerns for multiple industry and business communities
Memoranda on legal and business issues and concerns for multiple industry and business communities Overview Of Court Procedure 1 Rajah & Tann 4 Battery Road #26-01 Bank of China Building Singapore 049908
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 13-2756 JOSEPH M. GAMBINO, as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Joseph J. Gambino Deceased, Plaintiff -Appellee, v. DENNIS D.
More informationUnderstanding the U.S. Supreme Court
Understanding the U.S. Supreme Court Processing Supreme Court Cases Supreme Court Decision Making The Role of Law and Legal Principles Supreme Court Decision Making The Role of Politics Conducting Research
More informationJurisdiction. Appointed by the President with the Advice and Consent of the Senate according to Article II, Section 2
The Judicial Branch Jurisdiction Federal Courts Article III, Section 1 vests judicial power in the Supreme Court and other inferior courts created by Congress Judges serve during good Behavior Appointed
More informationThe Federal Courts. Chapter 16
The Federal Courts Chapter 16 The Nature of the Judicial Introduction: Two types of cases: System Criminal Law: The government charges an individual with violating one or more specific laws. Civil Law:
More informationSmall Claims Handbook A citizen s guide to handling small claims complaints in Kentucky
Small Claims Handbook A citizen s guide to handling small claims complaints in Kentucky Provided by the Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts and the Kentucky Office of Attorney General Small Claims
More informationChapter 11 and 12 - The Federal Court System
Chapter 11 and 12 - The Federal Court System SSCG16 The student will demonstrate knowledge of the operation of the federal judiciary. Powers of the Federal Courts Federal courts are generally created by
More informationMagruder s American Government
Presentation Pro Magruder s American Government C H A P T E R 18 The Federal Court System 2001 by Prentice Hall, Inc. C H A P T E R 18 The Federal Court System SECTION 1 The National Judiciary SECTION
More informationEmily Stern. Partner Madison Avenue New York, NY Practices. Industries. Selected Experience
Emily Stern Partner +1.212.940.8515 emily.stern@kattenlaw.com 575 Madison Avenue, NY 10022-2585 Practices FOCUS: and Dispute Resolution Securities and Enforcement White Collar, Investigations and Compliance
More informationWILLIAM E. CORUM. Kansas City, MO office:
WILLIAM E. CORUM Partner Kansas City, MO office: 816.983.8139 email: william.corum@ Overview As a trial lawyer, Bill is sought out by national and global companies for his litigation strategy and direction.
More informationThe Supreme Court s Structured Dismissal Of Bankruptcy Court Authority: Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp.
Westlaw Journal BANKRUPTCY Litigation News and Analysis Legislation Regulation Expert Commentary VOLUME 13, ISSUE 18 / JANUARY 12, 2017 EXPERT ANALYSIS The Supreme Court s Structured Dismissal Of Bankruptcy
More informationOUTLINE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN JAPAN CONTENTS
OUTLINE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN JAPAN CONTENTS I. Civil suits A. Types of civil suits B. Procedure for civil suits 1. Jurisdiction and court of first instance a. Jurisdiction b. Court 2. Court proceedings
More informationCourt Records Glossary
Court Records Glossary Documents Affidavit Answer Appeal Brief Case File Complaint Deposition Docket Indictment Interrogatories Injunction Judgment Opinion Pleadings Praecipe A written or printed statement
More informationJudicial Power and the Administrative State
Louisiana Law Review Volume 62 Number 1 Fall 2001 Judicial Power and the Administrative State James L. Dennis Repository Citation James L. Dennis, Judicial Power and the Administrative State, 62 La. L.
More informationStatute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: A Sketch
Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: A Sketch name redacted Senior Specialist in American Public Law November 14, 2017 Congressional Research Service 7-... www.crs.gov RS21121 Summary A statute
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before LUCERO, BALDOCK, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
D. RAY STRONG, as Liquidating Trustee of the Consolidated Legacy Debtors Liquidating Trust, the Castle Arch Opportunity Partners I, LLC Liquidating Trust and the Castle Arch Opportunity Partners II, LLC
More informationChicken or Egg: Applying the Age- Old Question to Class Waivers in Employee Arbitration Agreements
Chicken or Egg: Applying the Age- Old Question to Class Waivers in Employee Arbitration Agreements By Bonnie Burke, Lawrence & Bundy LLC and Christina Tellado, Reed Smith LLP Companies with employees across
More information) No. SB D RICHARD E. CLARK, ) ) No Respondent. ) ) O P I N I O N REVIEW FROM DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
In the Matter of SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc RICHARD E. CLARK, ) Attorney No. 9052 ) ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. SB-03-0113-D ) Disciplinary Commission ) No. 00-1066 Respondent. ) ) O P I N I O
More informationIn the Case No. 2:06-bk VZ, the Preliminary Statement states:
It seems that the news of hip hop mogul Marion Suge Knights Death Row Records having a new owner, GMG, may have been a little premature. The sale of Marion Suge Knight s hip hop and rap power house record
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2006 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-7-2006 In Re: Velocita Corp Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-1709 Follow this and additional
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2004 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
More informationNo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. FILED: April 18, 2013
In the Matter of: SI RESTRUCTURING INCORPORATED, Debtor JOHN C. WOOLEY; JEFFREY J. WOOLEY, Appellants v. HAYNES & BOONE, L.L.P.; SAM COATS; PIKE POWERS; JOHN SHARP; SARAH WEDDINGTON; GARY M. CADENHEAD,
More informationINTRO TO POLI SCI 11/30/15
INTRO TO POLI SCI 11/30/15 Objective: SWBAT describe the type of court system in the US and how the Supreme Court works. Agenda: Turn in Late Work Judicial Branch Notes When your friend asks to borrow
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DOUGLAS BURKE, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant/ Garnishor-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 5, 2010 v No. 290590 Wayne Circuit Court UNITED AMERICAN ACQUISITIONS AND LC No. 04-433025-CZ
More informationLEGAL GLOSSARY Additur Adjudication Admissible evidence Advisement Affiant - Affidavit - Affirmative defense - Answers to Interrogatories - Appeal -
Additur - An increase by a judge in the amount of damages awarded by a jury. Adjudication - Giving or pronouncing a judgment or decree; also, the judgment given. Admissible evidence - Evidence that can
More informationSpecial Commission on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (13-17 November 2017)
Special Commission on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (13-17 November 2017) NOVEMBER 2017 DRAFT CONVENTION* *This document reproduces the text set out in Working Document No 236 E
More informationPROMISSORY NOTE. limited liability company ( Maker ), promises to pay to [DEFAULTING MEMBER
PROMISSORY NOTE $ Austin, Texas IMPORTANT NOTICE THIS INSTRUMENT CONTAINS A CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT PROVISION, WHICH CONSTITUTES A WAIVER OF IMPORTANT RIGHTS YOU MAY HAVE AS A DEBTOR AND ALLOWS THE CREDITOR
More informationFLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION OPINION 02-4 April 2, Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION OPINION 02-4 April 2, 2004 Advisory ethics opinions are not binding. When the lawyer in a personal injury case is in possession of settlement funds against which third persons
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 21 February DARRELL S. HAUSER and ROBIN E. WHITAKER HAUSER, Defendants.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA16-606 Filed: 21 February 2017 Forsyth County, No. 15CVS7698 TERESA KAY HAUSER, Plaintiff, v. DARRELL S. HAUSER and ROBIN E. WHITAKER HAUSER, Defendants.
More informationNo IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NOTICE The text of this order may be changed or corrected prior t~ the time for filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. FIFTH DIVISION July 24, 2009 No. IN THE APPELLATE COURT
More informationCase DHS Doc 13-4 Filed 01/30/13 Entered 01/30/13 15:19:17 Desc Memorandum of Law Page 1 of 13
Memorandum of Law Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY In Re: WENDY LUBETSKY, Chapter 7 Debtor. WENDY LUBETSKY, v. Plaintiff, Case No.: 12 30829 (DHS) Adv. No.: 12
More informationEnforcement of Foreign Orders Under Chapter 15
Enforcement of Foreign Orders Under Chapter 15 Jeanne P. Darcey Amy A. Zuccarello Sullivan & Worcester LLP June 15, 2012 CHAPTER 15: 11 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. Purpose of chapter 15 is to Provide effective
More informationBy Jane Lynch and Jared Wagner
Can police obtain cell-site location information without a warrant? - The crossroads of the Fourth Amendment, privacy, and technology; addressing whether a new test is required to determine the constitutionality
More information