From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Hochman

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Sep 6, 1988
853 F.2d 1547 (11th Cir. 1988)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

adopting decision reported as United States v. Lee, 89 B.R. 250, 257 (N.D. Ga. 1987), involving § 294f(g)

Summary of this case from In re Swanson
See 3 Summaries

Opinion

No. 87-8744. Non-Argument Calendar.

September 6, 1988.

Jonathan I. Sbar, Atlanta, Ga., for cross-appellant.

Myles E. Eastwood, Asst. U.S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for cross-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Before TJOFLAT, HILL and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The judgment appealed is AFFIRMED for the reasons stated by the district court in its Order of July 23, 1987, reported at 89 B.R. 250.

Summaries of

In re Hochman

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Sep 6, 1988
853 F.2d 1547 (11th Cir. 1988)

adopting decision reported as United States v. Lee, 89 B.R. 250, 257 (N.D. Ga. 1987), involving § 294f(g)

Summary of this case from In re Swanson

affirming lower court decision that stated without discussion, and not as the main holding of the case, that confirmation orders could only be revoked for fraud pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1330

Summary of this case from In re Garvin

affirming per curiam the district court which held that § 1330 was both a time and substantive limitation on revocation

Summary of this case from In re Young
Case details for

In re Hochman

Case Details

Full title:IN RE JERRY IRWIN HOCHMAN, DEBTOR. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Date published: Sep 6, 1988

Citations

853 F.2d 1547 (11th Cir. 1988)

Citing Cases

In re Gilbert

Although the Eleventh Circuit has not explicitly addressed whether § 1330(a) limits motions to revoke Chapter…

In re Coleman

The majority of circuit courts that have addressed this issue have disagreed with Taylor. See In re Bender,…

15 Citing Cases