Opinions

The District of Northern Illinois offers a database of opinions for the years 1999 to 2013, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.

Subscribe to All Opinions

Judge Jacqueline P. Cox

14 B 02696, 15 B 17314
The court found that it has post-confirmation jurisdiction to enforce and interpret its confirmation order in a chapter 11 case  where all transactions described therein have not been completed and a final decree has yet to be entered.

In re Jerome Sims, Jr.
January 10, 2017

16 B 04589
The court found that the purchaser of the Debtor's unpaid real estate taxes was adequately protected by the "sale in error" program and potential Plan payments.

In re EHC, LLC
January 6, 2017

15 B 40866
An attorney has been found to have violated Rule 9011 by delaying a creditor's efforts to enforce its rights.

Judge A. Benjamin Goldgar

15 B 23651, 16 A 00014

Judge Deborah L. Thorne

In re Iris V. Colon
December 29, 2016

16 B 09951

In re Monica L. Lowe
December 29, 2016

16 B 23451

Judge Jack B. Schmetterer

Judge Timothy A. Barnes

11 B 38875, 12 A 00155
Upon remand from the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reinstating the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, held:  The plaintiff has established grounds for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.  The debtor’s admissions establish that the debt she owed to the plaintiff arose when she, as trustee for an express trust, misappropriated funds from the trust to the detriment of the plaintiff, a beneficiary of the trust.  Such debt is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).  The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is, therefore, GRANTED as to the statutory elements of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) and all alternative counts are mooted thereby.  The court abstains from hearing the only remaining aspect of the complaint—the value of the plaintiff’s claim.

12 B 49658
Upon the partial remand from the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois of the motion of the state taxing authority seeking monetary adequate protection following a sale of the debtors’ assets under 363(f), held:  The District Court directs this court to determine the issues of quantification and recovery of the state taxing authority’s adequate protection claim.  Because the state taxing authority has failed to demonstrate either a realizable claim or a source of recovery, the remaining aspects of the state taxing authority’s motion are DENIED.  In accord, all the remaining aspects of the secured lender’s competing motion are, therefore, GRANTED and the chapter 7 trustee is authorized to pay the remaining proceeds to the secured lender.

Pages