9 Cited authorities

Landis v. North American Co.
299 U.S. 248 (1936) Cited 8,275 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a decision to stay proceedings "calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance"
Williford v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
715 F.2d 124 (4th Cir. 1983) Cited 290 times
Holding that courts possess the inherent power to stay an action to ensure the "efficient management of their dockets"
Parker v. Bain
68 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 1995) Cited 156 times
Holding “that Rule 6009 does not authorize proceedings that section 362 would otherwise bar”
In re Singleton
230 B.R. 533 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 1999) Cited 113 times
Explaining a state court's order is void ab initio and subject to collateral attack if the state court does not have subject matter jurisdiction
In re Mid-City Parking, Inc.
332 B.R. 798 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2005) Cited 34 times
Rejecting application of Rooker-Feldman doctrine to debtor's claims for attorneys' fees incurred in obtaining dismissal of state court case which allegedly violated automatic stay, where fee claims were brought in bankruptcy court where stay originated
Holland v. High Power Energy
248 B.R. 53 (S.D.W. Va. 2000) Cited 12 times
Asking if the non-debtor's obligations were independent, not derivative, of the debtor's obligations where there was an indemnification agreement between the two
In re Dolen
265 B.R. 471 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2001) Cited 5 times
Case No. 01-10209-8C3 July 17, 2001. John D. Goldsmith, Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye, O'Neill Mullis, P.A., Tampa, FL, for Debtor. Michael P. Mora, Washington, DC, for FTC. Edmund S. Whitson, III, Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith Cutler, P.A. Tampa, FL, for Reveiver. Terry E. Smith, Bradenton, FL, Chapter 13 Trustee.. ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS AS TO APPLICABILITY OF THE AUTOMATIC STAY C. TIMOTHY CORCORAN, III, United States Bankruptcy Judge. This case presents unsettled issues concerning
Taylor v. Barnett Bank, N. Cen. FL
737 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998) Cited 4 times 1 Legal Analyses
No. 98-158. Opinion filed September 4, 1998. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Suwannee County. Paul S. Bryan, Judge. M. Katherine Ramers, Esquire, Dunedin, for appellants. No appearance for appellee. OPINION ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION PER CURIAM. The appellants file a motion for clarification asking this court to articulate its position regarding the effect of a bankruptcy proceeding on an appeal. A final judgment of foreclosure was entered against appellants in favor of Barnett Bank. Appellants
Section 1334 - Bankruptcy cases and proceedings
28 U.S.C. § 1334 Cited 40,694 times 57 Legal Analyses
Granting "exclusive jurisdiction" to a federal court handling a bankruptcy case "of all the property, wherever located, of the debtor as of the commencement of such case, and of property of the estate"

Mirabilis Ventures, Inc. et al v. Palaxar Group, LLC et al

9 Cited authorities

Holding that a decision to stay proceedings "calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance"

Holding that courts possess the inherent power to stay an action to ensure the "efficient management of their dockets"

Holding “that Rule 6009 does not authorize proceedings that section 362 would otherwise bar”

Explaining a state court's order is void ab initio and subject to collateral attack if the state court does not have subject matter jurisdiction

Rejecting application of Rooker-Feldman doctrine to debtor's claims for attorneys' fees incurred in obtaining dismissal of state court case which allegedly violated automatic stay, where fee claims were brought in bankruptcy court where stay originated

Asking if the non-debtor's obligations were independent, not derivative, of the debtor's obligations where there was an indemnification agreement between the two

Granting "exclusive jurisdiction" to a federal court handling a bankruptcy case "of all the property, wherever located, of the debtor as of the commencement of such case, and of property of the estate"