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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/06/10 |
Thunderbird Holdings, Llc (2:09-bk-15391-GBN) 04/06/10 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Confirmation of First Amended Plan of Reorganization |
||
| 05/01/06 |
Law Et Al V. Mazzacone Et Al (2:04-ap-00592-GBN) 05/01/06 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Judgment |
||
| 02/17/05 |
Hester Et Al V. Abbott (0:04-ap-00006-EWH) 02/17/05 Memorandum Decision |
Judge Eileen W. Hollowell (retired) | |
| 06/23/14 |
Arizona Auto Spa 4, Llc, An Arizona Limited Liabil V. Spreiser (4:12-ap-01988-EWH) 06/23/14 Memorandum Decision |
Judge Eileen W. Hollowell (retired) | |
| 11/16/09 |
Peter Tescione, Jr (4:09-bk-05569-EWH) 11/16/09 Memorandum Decision |
Judge Eileen W. Hollowell (retired) | |
| 02/19/13 |
Dzurissin V. Taylor (4:11-ap-01211-EWH) 02/19/13 Memorandum Decision |
Judge Eileen W. Hollowell (retired) | |
| 12/16/05 |
Cynthia Marie Whyte (4:05-bk-06962-EWH) 12/16/05 Memorandum Decision |
Judge Eileen W. Hollowell (retired) | |
| 12/21/12 |
Tommy Constantine (2:12-bk-04842-EWH) 12/21/12 Memorandum Decision on Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay |
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) | |
| 05/03/05 |
Mohrland V. Mohrland (4:04-ap-00104-EWH) 05/03/05 Memorandum Decision |
Judge Eileen W. Hollowell (retired) |