You are here
Opinions
The District of Arizona offers a database of opinions for the years 2012 to current, listed by year and judge.
Judicial opinions from the District of Arizona, as well as other participating courts from throughout the nation, can also be accessed through the U.S. Government Publishing Office's United States Courts Opinions web page. To view judicial opinions on the GPO’s website, click here.
| Date | Description |
Judge |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/20/13 |
Morris (4:12-bk-15511-EWH) 03/20/13 Holding: The Trustee has filed an objection to Debtor's exemption of both her and Husband's interest in the Honda on the grounds that Debtor may not claim an exemption on behalf of the non-filing Husband. The Trustee's objection is denied. |
Judge Eileen W. Hollowell (retired) | |
| 02/09/05 |
Arlene Diane Peterson And Albert J. Peterson (2:04-bk-01846-EWH) 02/09/05 Memorandum Decision |
Judge Eileen W. Hollowell (retired) | |
| 06/15/12 |
Minaxi G Patel (4:10-bk-20822-EWH) 06/15/12 Memorandum Decision |
Judge Eileen W. Hollowell (retired) | |
| 11/09/12 |
Saunders Rudasill Hotel, LLC (4:11-bk-16202-EWH) 11/09/12 Holding: When evaluating competing confirmation plans, “the court shall consider the preferences of creditors and equity security holders in determining which plan to confirm.” 11 U.S.C. § 1129(c). Under both Debtor’s and Lender’s Plans, the existing equity holders would be replaced. As a result, only creditors’ preferences need to be considered when choosing between the competing plans. Accordingly, Lender’s Plan should be confirmed because it satisfies all of the required elements of § 1129 and provides for the best interests of creditors. Lender’s proposed 100% payment with interest offers better treatment to all creditors than Debtor’s proposal, which offers extended payment terms and exposes Lender (the largest creditor) to an unacceptable level of risk. |
Judge Eileen W. Hollowell (retired) | |
| 06/25/12 |
David M Waterman And Mildred Martinez Waterman (4:11-bk-02598-EWH) 06/25/12 Memorandum Decision |
Judge Eileen W. Hollowell (retired) | |
| 09/05/12 |
Mark Bond and Ashlea Bond (4:11-bk-33849-EWH) 09/05/12 Holding: Debtors’ Schedules and Plan undervalue their ownership interest in Old Chicago Deli as a going concern and violate § 1325 by failing to adequately account for all disposable income. As a result, the Court will enter a separate Order on this date requiring that Debtors calculate the going-concern value of their 70% interest in Old Chicago Deli and amend their Schedules and Plan to reflect this calculation along with the $20,000- $25,000 in additional annual income earned from Old Chicago Deli. |
Judge Eileen W. Hollowell (retired) | |
| 04/24/13 |
Ashburn Et Al V. Kolb Et Al (4:10-ap-02034-EWH) 04/24/13 Memorandum Granting Motion for Reconsideration |
Judge Eileen W. Hollowell (retired) | |
| 10/06/05 |
Phoenix Process Equipment, Co. V. Smith Et Al (2:06-ap-00024-EWH) 10/06/05 Memorandum Decision |
Judge Eileen W. Hollowell (retired) | |
| 05/13/11 |
Jones V. Jones (4:10-ap-01166-EWH) 05/13/11 Memorandum Decision On Damages |
Judge Eileen W. Hollowell (retired) | |
| 11/09/12 |
Trails End Lodge, Llc (4:11-bk-16190-EWH) 11/09/12 Holding: When evaluating competing confirmation plans, “the court shall consider the preferences of creditors and equity security holders in determining which plan to confirm.” 11 U.S.C. § 1129(c). Under both Debtor’s and Lender’s Plans, the existing equity holders would be replaced. As a result, only creditors’ preferences need to be considered when choosing between the competing plans. Accordingly, Lender’s Plan should be confirmed because it satisfies all of the required elements of § 1129 and provides for the best interests of creditors. Lender’s proposed 100% payment with interest offers better treatment to all creditors than Debtor’s proposal, which offers extended payment terms and exposes Lender (the largest creditor) to an unacceptable level of risk. |
Judge Eileen W. Hollowell (retired) |