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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/23/13 |
Orca, LLC v. Gifford (4:12-ap-01757-EWH) 05/23/13 Holding: The location of the Building on the Lot and the Adjacent Lot will undoubtedly continue to bedevil the Debtor and the Plaintiffs, but the Debtor may not use his Chapter 13 case for a second bite at the apple regarding the effect and enforceability of the Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED |
Judge Eileen W. Hollowell (retired) | |
| 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) | |
| 02/02/06 |
Osborn Et Al V. Hall Et Al (4:05-ap-00195-EWH) 02/02/06 Memorandum Decision |
Judge Eileen W. Hollowell (retired) | |
| 06/14/13 |
Val-Mid Associates, L.L.C. (4:12-bk-20519-EWH) 06/14/13 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) | |
| 12/23/05 |
Bossardet V. Educational Credit Management Corporation (4:04-ap-00085-EWH) 12/23/05 Memorandum Decision |
Judge Eileen W. Hollowell (retired) | |
| 04/10/07 |
Michael Keith Schugg (2:04-bk-13326-GBN) 04/10/07 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order |
||
| 09/04/03 |
Palm Valley Nursing Facility, L.P. (2:01-ap-15615-GBN) 09/04/03 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order |
||
| 04/27/06 |
Korus Et Al V. Rogan Et Al (2:05-ap-00329-GBN) 04/27/06 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order |
||
| 06/05/03 |
Dorothy Jones (2:02-ap-01635-GBN) 06/05/03 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order |