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.

RSS Icon Subscribe to All Opinions

Judge Donald R. Cassling

Judge Jack B. Schmetterer

Judge Thomas M. Lynch

Final applications for approval of fees and expenses of Debtors’ counsel granted in part and denied in part. Based on objections by the Chapter 12 Trustee, the court disallowed certain entries due to excessive time billed, duplication of services, unnecessary proceedings, and travel time billed at full hourly rate.

USDA’s motion in chapter 13 case for relief from the automatic stay to pursue a foreclosure against Debtors’ residence granted after finding that Debtors were in default on the terms of the confirmed plan without justification or a request for modification and the determination of whether the original loan agreement was modified or novated by a subsequent assistance agreement was best left to the state court.

18-80357, 18-96014
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on determination of nondischargeability under § 523(a)(6) was denied after finding default judgment in state court not entitled to collateral estoppel.

Judge Jacqueline P. Cox

On remand from the district court, after a trial, findings were made regarding an Intervenor's assertion that she had been denied due process when she was not served in an adversary proceeding where trust assets were found to be part of a bankruptcy estate in 2010.  The court found that the Intervenor waived her objection because she waited too long to bring it up and by participating in the litigation through her agents, her brother, Richard Sharif, the Debtor, and her attorney, who she sued for legal malpractice for not asserting certain claims in the underlying matter.

Judge Deborah L. Thorne


Judge LaShonda A. Hunt

14bk008893, 16ap00195
At issue is whether the law in this Circuit holds that only unpaid new value can be used by a creditor to reduce preference liability under 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(4)(B). The court concludes the answer to that question is yes.

Judge Timothy A. Barnes

Upon a motion seeking enforcement of this court’s confirmation order and damages arising from the alleged violation by the debtors’ prepetition surety, filed by successor to the purchaser of assets in the above-captioned bankruptcy cases, the court having previously determined that the surety violated the injunction and release set forth in the court’s confirmation order and the debtors’ plan, and after a trial to determine damages, held: The movant has established that it is entitled to damages stemming from the surety’s repeated pursuit of claims against the movant in the state court.  The court, therefore, awards actual damages for reduced property value, legal costs, consulting costs and project management costs.  The court declines to award punitive damages.  The motion remains GRANTED and this decision concludes the motion.