In re Whitehorn

6 Citing cases

  1. Cook v. Cook

    220 B.R. 918 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1997)   Cited 9 times
    Finding that courts limit "exclusivity" by inferring that "§ 1334(e) means nothing at all"

    1980). But see In re Whitehorn, 9 B.R. 404, 405 n. 2, 7 B.C.D. 394 (Bankr.N.D.Ga. 1981); In re Coleman American Companies, 8 B.R. 384, 387-89, 7 B.C.D. 127, 6 C.B.C.2d 162 (Bankr.D.Kan. 1981). Before explaining the rationale propounded by many of these courts, a brief review of the pre-Code jurisdictional scheme would be helpful.

  2. Matter of Robintech Inc.

    35 B.R. 688 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1983)   Cited 1 times

    In re Rapco Foam, Inc., 16 B.R. 765, 8 B.C.D.857 (Bkrtcy. Mo. 1982); In re Rapco Foam, Inc., 23 B.R. 692, 693, 9 B.C.D. 858 (Bkrtcy.Wis. 1982); Stamm v. Rapco Foam, Inc., 21 B.R. 715 (Bkrtcy.Penn. 1982); In re Whitehorn, 9 B.R. 404, 405 (Bkrtcy.Ga. 1981); In re Dew Mortgage Company, Inc., 10 B.R. 242, 7 B.C.D. 583, 4 C.B.C.2d 535 (Bkrtcy.Fla. 1981); In re Burley, 11 B.R. 369, 7 B.C.D. 861, 4 C.B.C.2d 652 (Bkrtcy.Cal. 1981); Jahan v. Dakota Industries, Inc., 27 B.R. 575 (D.C.N.J. 1983); Green Tie Realty Corporation, 14 B.R. 923, 930, 8 B.C.D. 274, 5 C.B.C.2d 881 (Bkrtcy.N.Y. 1981). In order for this Court to hear and decide and render a final judgment, it is necessary to lift the automatic stay for that limited purpose only.

  3. In re Zaleta

    29 B.R. 489 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1983)   Cited 1 times

    To avoid any further question as to the effect of delay in the disposition of this proceeding in light of the quoted statute, this ancillary adversary proceeding is now dismissed without prejudice to its reinstitution by plaintiff in the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In re Whitehorn, Bkrtcy.N.D.Ga.1981, 9 B.R. 404, 7 B.C.D. 394.

  4. In re National Shoes, Inc.

    20 B.R. 672 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 1982)   Cited 4 times

    Following the policy that proper venue for the determination of an automatic stay question is the debtor's "home" court, see, e.g., In re Coleman American Companies, Inc., 8 B.R. 384, 7 BCD 127 (Bkrtcy.D.Kan. 1981); In re Burley, 11 B.R. 369 (Bkrtcy.C.D.Cal. 1981); In re Whitehorn, 9 B.R. 404, 7 BCD 394 (Bkrtcy.D.Ga. 1981); In re Zaleta, 13 B.R. 144, 8 BCD 164 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Fla. 1981), the Maine court transferred the proceeding to New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1477(a). The court declined to consider the issues raised under 28 U.S.C. § 1475 because those issues would be more properly determined by the New York court after the § 362 question was resolved.

  5. In re Nat. Shoes, Inc.

    18 B.R. 507 (Bankr. D. Me. 1982)   Cited 5 times

    See Coleman American Companies, Inc. v. The Littleton National Bank (In re Coleman American Companies, Inc.) 8 B.R. 384 (Bkrtcy.D.Kan. 1981); In re Burley, supra. It is also the proper court in which to seek relief from the stay. See In re Burley, supra; Meriwether Fed. Sav. Loan Assn. v. Whitehorn (In re Whitehorn), 9 B.R. 404 (Bkrtcy.D.Ga. 1981); In re Zaleta, 13 B.R. 144 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Fla. 1981). 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), as pertinent, provides:

  6. In re Rapco Foam, Inc.

    16 B.R. 765 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 1982)   Cited 3 times

    01[e] at 3-49 (15th Ed.). The Colorado court in Coleman, supra, 6 B.R. 251, properly asserted its jurisdiction over the complaint to lift the stay. But see In re Whitehorn, 9 B.R. 404, 405 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ga. 1981) to the contrary. The clear language of the venue provisions of Section 1473, Title 28, U.S.C. permits "a proceeding arising in or related to a case under title 11" to be commenced anywhere jurisdiction is found.