Cases

OPINION THURMAN, Chief Judge. In this appeal, both the debtor, Expert South Tulsa, LLC (“EST”), and the E.H. Hawes Revocable Trust (the “Trust”)1 challenge the bankruptcy court’s order granting Cornerstone Creek Partners, LLC (“Cornerstone”)’s motion for summary judgment in the appellants’ fraudulent transfer claim against it. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND

Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER. Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email corrections@akcourts.us. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA JANET HUDSON, on behalf of ) herself and all others, ) Supreme Court Nos. S-

SYLLABUS This syllabus is not part of the Court’s opinion. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Court and may not summarize all portions of the opinion. Victoria Crisitello v. St. Theresa School (A-63-20) (085213) Argued April 24, 2023 -- Decided August 14, 2023 -- Revised August 14, 2023 SOLOMON, J., writing for the Court. The Court consider

Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the P ACIFIC R EPORTER . Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email corrections@akcourts.us. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA JANET HUDSON, on behalf of ) herself and all others, ) Supreme Court Nos.

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 25a0170p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ DENNIS SPEERLY; JOSEPH SIERCHIO; DARRIN │ DEGRAND; DANIEL DRAIN; WAVERS SMITH; RICHARD

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA City of Philadelphia : : v. : No. 40 C.D. 2023 : Submitted: February 4, 2025 1531 Napa, LLC, : Appellant : BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE TAX COURT COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS --------------------------------------------------------x 3 UNIVERSITY PLAZA SPE, LLC and : TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY 3 UNIV PLZA SPE % NORMANDY RE P, : DOCKET NOS.: 005002-2014 : 001670-2015 Plaintiff,

II. The Parties A. The Debtors 3. Holdings, one of the Debtors on whose behalf the Committee brings this proceeding, is a limited liability company formed under the laws of Delaware. Prior to the Petition Date, certain Comvest entities owned an interest in Holdings. Holdings directly or indirectly owned and operated approximately 18 supermarkets and one pharmacy in Oregon and Washington before contracting

Spearman, A.C.J. ¶1 The underlying case is a quiet title action involving property purportedly sold at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale. At the sale, the respondents made a successful bid on the appellants’ property, believing, based on the address and other references in the deed of trust and notice of trustee’s sale, that they were bidding on a three-acre lot with a house on it. After the sale, however, the buyers discovered that

ROGERS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which COOK, J., joined. CLAY, J. (pp. 595-96), delivered a separate opinion concurring in the judgment. OPINION ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Under 11 U.S.C. § 363(m), an approved sale of chapter 11 bankruptcy estate property generally cannot be challenged on appeal if the sale has already been consummated in good faith without an interve

OPINION HEWITT, Chief Judge. I. Background This is an action brought by Stueve Bros. Farms, LLC and Mill Creek Farming Associates, LLC (plaintiffs) for just compensation pursuant to the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Compl. (Complaint or Compl.), Docket Number (Dkt. No.) 1, ¶¶ 1-2, 5. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims p

470 B.R. 32 (2012) In re CHICAGO INVESTMENTS, LLC, et al.,[1] Debtors. No. 10-23809-WCH. United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts, Eastern Division. April 24, 2012. *38 Charles R. Bennett, Jr., Andrew G. Lizotte, Christopher M. Condon, John C. Elstad, Murphy & King, P.C., Boston, MA, for the Debtors. Richard

446 B.R. 159 (2009) In re Thelma Jane HOWE, Debtor. Thelma Jane Howe and Donald J. Howe, Plaintiffs, v. Creditors Interchange Receivable Management, LLC, and Bank of America, N.A., Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 09-10183 Sr. Adversary No. 09-00010. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. July 2, 2009. *161 David A. Sch

620 F.3d 584 (2010) In re NASHVILLE SENIOR LIVING, LLC; Anderson Senior Living Property, LLC; Charlotte Oakdale Property, LLC; Greensboro Oakdale Property, LLC; Mt. Pleasant Oakdale I Property, LLC; Mt. Pleasant Oakdale II Property, LLC, et al., Debtors. The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, fka The Official Committees of Tenants in Common Investors, Appellant, v. Anderson Senior Living Property, LLC; Charlotte Oakdale Property, LLC;

407 B.R. 222 (2009) In re NASHVILLE SENIOR LIVING, LLC, et al., Debtors. Official Committees of Unsecured Creditors, Appellants, v. Anderson Senior Living Property, LLC, et al., Appellees. BAP Nos. 08-8087, 08-8091, 08-8094, 08-8089, 08-8092, 08-8095, 08-8090, 08-8093. United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit. June 11, 2009.

[Regarding Application of the Court's Prior Rulings on Manifestation, Incidental Damages (Lost Time), and Unjust Enrichment to All Remaining Jurisdictions in Dispute (MDL Order No. 131 Issues) ] JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION... 274 LEGAL STANDARDS... 275 DISCUSSION... 275 A. Manifestation... 276

348 B.R. 699 (2006) In re TUBULAR TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Debtors. No. 06-00228-JW. United States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Carolina. July 18, 2006. *700 *701 Todd Boudreaux, Boudreaus and Tisdale, LLP, Evans, GA, for Debtor. SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER JOHN E. WAITES, Bankruptcy Judge.

ADKINS, J. In this case, we determine the proper measure of lost profit damages in a breach of contract case, a question uncommon for our docket. We also review the rare situation when a trial court has permitted a litigant to discover and introduce into evidence communications between an opposing party and its attorneys, based on an implied waiver of the attorney-client privilege via testimony. Finally, we answer four other

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER James 0. Browning, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Bench Trial on Plaintiffs’ First Through Fourth Claims for Relief, and Brief in Support, filed February 17, 2017 (Doc. 253)(“Motion for Bench Trial”). The Court held a hearing on April 26-27, 2017, The primary issues are whether: (i) the Plaintiffs’ breach-of-fiduciary-

ACCEPTED 06-15-00005-CV SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 11/13/2015 12:19:43 PM