Barajas v. Holder

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that related to jurisdiction over debtor’s complaint to rescind mortgage under nonbankruptcy law “evaporated upon the Trustee’s abandonment” of the rescission claim because the outcome of the complaint would have no impact on the bankruptcy estate
• also noting that “greater delay may attend this proceeding if [the bankruptcy court] retains jurisdiction to rule on the merits; . . ., another layer of de novo judicial review by the district court would be required for the entry of a final judgment”
• also noting that “greater delay may attend this proceeding if [the bankruptcy court] retains jurisdiction to rule on the merits; . . ., another layer of de novo judicial review by the district court would be required for the entry of a final judgment”
• also noting that “greater delay may attend this proceeding if [the bankruptcy court] retains jurisdiction to rule on the merits; . . ., another layer of de novo judicial review by the district court would be required for the entry of a final judgment”
• also noting that “greater delay may attend this proceeding if [the bankruptcy court] retains jurisdiction to rule on the merits; . . ., another layer of de novo judicial review by the district court would be required for the entry of a final judgment”
• also noting that “greater delay may attend this proceeding if [the bankruptcy court] retains jurisdiction to rule on the merits; . . ., another layer of de novo judicial review by the district court would be required for the entry of a final judgment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).