Skip to main content
It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.
United States Supreme Court
Keep Current on Supreme Court Decisions
Major Supreme Court Opinions before BAPCPA
Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, Trustee for the Estate of O'Sullivan's Fuel Oil Co., Inc.
503 US 249 (1992); 112 S. Ct. 1146
Held: An interlocutory order issued by a district court sitting as a court of appeals in bankruptcy is appealable under the unambiguous language of 28 U. S. C. 1292. That section provides for review in the courts of appeals, in certain circumstances, of "[i]nterlocutory orders of the district courts," and does not limit such review to orders issued by district courts sitting as bankruptcy trial courts rather than appellate courts.
Major Supreme Court Opinions after BAPCPA
These are major U.S. Supreme Court opinions after BAPCPA became law in 2005.
Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif
135 S. Ct. 1932 (5/26/2015) No. 13-935
Holding: Article III permits bankruptcy judges to adjudicate Stern claims with the parties’ knowing and voluntary consent.
Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency, Inc.)
134 S. Ct. 2165 (6/9/2014) No. 12-1200.
When the Constitution doesn't "permit a bankruptcy court to enter a final judgment on a bankruptcy-related claim, the relevant statute nevertheless permits a bankruptcy court to issue proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to be reviewed de novo by the district court," a unanimous Supreme Court says. The issue was how far a bankruptcy court can go in deciding bankruptcy-related matters that involve "core" bankruptcy issues, given the Supreme Court's 2011 ruling in Stern v. Marshall and the fact that bankruptcy judges are not Article III judges.
Stern v. Marshall,
131 S. Ct. 2594 (6/23/2011) No. 10-179.
Issue: Is it constitutional for a United States bankruptcy court to issue a final decision regarding a compulsory counterclaim based on state law, or is the bankruptcy court limited to only issuing final decisions regarding counterclaims which are based on “core” issues of the bankruptcy proceeding?
Holding: The bankruptcy court had the statutory authority to issue a final and binding decision on a claim based exclusively on a right assured by state law. However, the bankruptcy court nonetheless lacked the constitutional authority to do so.