In re S.N.A. Nut Co.

6 Citing cases

  1. In re S.N.A. Nut Co.

    247 B.R. 7 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2000)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that under the UCC contracts may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement

    Partial summary judgment was also entered in SNA's favor on several of HD's affirmative defenses. On November 20, 1998, summary judgment was entered in SNA's favor on four of HD's affirmative defenses: (1) statute of frauds (First Affirmative Defense); (2) judicial estoppel (Fourth Affirmative Defense); (3) equitable estoppel (Fifth Affirmative Defense); (4) res judicata (Eighth Affirmative Defense). S.N.A. Nut Co. v. Haagen-Dazs Co., Inc. (In re S.N.A. Nut Co.), 226 B.R. 869, 878 (Bankr. N.D.Ill. 1998). On March 29, 1999, summary judgment was entered in SNA's favor on HD's Thirteenth Affirmative Defense. S.N.A. Nut Co. v. Haagen-Dazs Co., Inc. (In re S.N.A. Nut Co.), 231 B.R. 12, 14 (Bankr.N.D.Ill. 1999).

  2. Pillay v. Millard Refrigerated Servs., Inc.

    CASE NUMBER 09 C 5725 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 5, 2013)

    See Ambre v. Joe Madden Ford, 881 F. Supp. 1187, 1193 (N.D. Ill. 1995). See also S.N.A. Nut Co. v. Haagen-Dazs Co., Inc. (In re S.N.A. Nut Co.), 226 B.R. 869, 872 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1998) (collecting cases). Granting plaintiff's motion would not entirely dispose of any count in his complaint, and, therefore, partial summary judgment is not available to plaintiff on the pending motion.

  3. In Re: S.N.A. Nut Company

    Case No. 00 C 2820, 94 B 5993 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 18, 2000)

    The bankruptcy court heard six witnesses, reviewed deposition testimony of four witnesses and issued a twenty-six-page recommendation of findings of fact and conclusions of law, generally finding in favor of S.N.A. and proposing a final judgment in S.N.A.'s favor in the amount of $921,978.49. Prior to the trial the bankruptcy court considered several motions for summary judgment on a variety of subsidiary issues, rejecting some and granting others. See S.N.A. Nut Company v. Haagen-Dazs Company, 215 B.R. 1004 (N.D.Ill. 1997) and S.N.A. Nut Company v. Haagen-Dazs, 226 B.R. 869 (N.D.Ill. 1998) Haagen-Dazs has now filed its objections to many of the proposed findings as well as to the summary judgments entered prior to trial.

  4. In re S.N.A. Nut Company v. the Haagen-Dazs Company

    Case Nos. 94 B 5993, 00 C 2820 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 17, 2000)

    The bankruptcy court heard six witnesses, reviewed deposition testimony of four witnesses and issued a twenty-six-page recommendation of findings of fact and conclusions of law, generally finding in favor of S.N.A. and proposing a final judgment in S.N.A.'s favor in the amount of $921,978.49. Prior to the trial the bankruptcy court considered several motions for summary judgment on a variety of subsidiary issues, rejecting some and granting others. See S.N.A. Nut Company v. Haagen-Dazs Company, 215 B.R. 1004 (N.D.Ill. 1997) and S.N.A. Nut Company v. Haagen-Dazs, 226 B.R. 869 (N.D.Ill. 1998). Haagen-Dazs has now filed its objections to many of the proposed findings as well as to the summary judgments entered prior to trial.

  5. In re Wedlo Holdings, Inc.

    Bankruptcy Nos. 96 B 2698, 96 B 2701, 96 B 2702 (Jointly Administered), Chapter 11 Cases; Adversary No. 96 A 01025 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. May. 16, 2000)

    In deciding a summary judgment motion, the court should not "weigh the evidence." S.N.A. Nut Co. v. The Haagen-Dazs Co., Inc. (In re S.N.A. Nut Co.), 226 B.R. 869, 871 (Bankr.N.D.Ill. 1998) (citations omitted). Because each party has presented some evidence regarding the financing statement, and this Court, on a motion for summary judgment, cannot weigh the evidence, summary judgment is not appropriate on the issue of whether Schick filed a UCC-1 financing statement with respect to Wedlo's inventory.

  6. In re Wedlo Holdings, Inc.

    248 B.R. 336 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2000)   Cited 5 times
    Holding as a matter of law that consignee who obtained only 15% to 20% of its inventory on consignment was not substantially engaged in selling goods of others

    In deciding a summary judgment motion, the court should not "weigh the evidence." S.N.A. Nut Co. v. Haagen-Dazs Co., Inc. (In re S.N.A. Nut Co.), 226 B.R. 869, 871 (Bankr.N.D.Ill. 1998) (citations omitted). Because each party has presented some evidence regarding the financing statement, and this Court, on a motion for summary judgment, cannot weigh the evidence, summary judgment is not appropriate on the issue of whether Schick filed a UCC-1 financing statement with respect to Wedlo's inventory.