You are here

Opinions

Email Updates - Click here to subscribe for automatic notices when this page is updated.

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 Judgesort descending
07/25/14 Smith v. Leverton (2:13-ap-00232-DPC) 07/25/14

Holding: Denying both Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s motions for reconsideration.

Judge Daniel P. Collins
02/29/16 Jeffrey Allen Cohen (2:14-bk-11079-DPC) 02/29/16

Under Advisement Ruling on Trustee's Motion to Quash AZDOR Levy (Related Doc # 92)

Judge Daniel P. Collins
09/30/20 Parker V. Titan Mining (Us) Corporation Et Al (2:19-ap-00412-DPC) 09/30/20

UNDER ADVISEMENT ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

Judge Daniel P. Collins
03/14/17 Richard John Zivney, III (3:16-bk-07582-DPC) 03/14/17

Amended Under Advisement Ruling on Debtor's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Sustaining Trustee's Objection to Claimed Exemption

Judge Daniel P. Collins
05/21/21 Shirley Stone And John Winston Stone (2:21-bk-01383-DPC) 05/21/21

JUDGEMENT

Judge Daniel P. Collins
03/07/18 Ronald A. Klave, Jr. And Sofia R. Klave (2:16-bk-14246-DPC) 03/07/18

UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING RE CONDUIT PLAN

Judge Daniel P. Collins
10/25/19 Shaffer v. Amazon Services LLC (2:13-ap-00799-DPC) 10/25/19

UNDER ADVISEMENT ORDER Regarding Discovery Disputes

Judge Daniel P. Collins
03/06/20 Kara Frances Jennings (2:18-bk-11759-DPC) 03/06/20

UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING on Trustee's Motion for Reconsideration

Judge Daniel P. Collins
03/31/16 Edwards v. US Dept of Education et al (3:15-ap-00026-PS) 03/31/16

Under Advisement Order

Judge Daniel P. Collins
07/15/13 Sample (2:10-bk-38373-DPC) 07/15/13

Holding: So long as there is not a contrary published opinion from the District Court of Arizona, this Court will follow the opinions of the Ninth Circuit BAP, whether or not this Court agrees with the reasoning behind the particular BAP decision. The BAP in the Friedman decision held that the absolute priority rule does not apply in an individual debtor’s Chapter 11 case. The rationale for its 2-1 decision is set out in the extensive opinion penned in Friedman by Bankruptcy Judge Clarkson. Although this Court tends to favor the dissenting decision of Judge Jury in Friedman, for the reasons stated above, this Court feels duty bound to follow the majority’s holding in Friedman. Accordingly, the objection to the Debtor’s chapter 11 plan based on absolute priority grounds is hereby overruled.

Judge Daniel P. Collins

Pages