C.H. Robinson Co. v. Paris & Sons, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• discussing H.R.Rep. No. 95-595, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 340 (1978), U.S.C.C.A.N. 1978, 6297 & S.Rep. No. 95-989, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 54-55 (1978), U.S.C.C.A.N. 1978, 5787, 5840-41 (additional citations omitted)
• “[U]nusual circumstances do not exist where the debtor's insider is independently liable . . . .”
• “Eighth Circuit caselaw ... is illustrative of a generalized reluctancy to expand the scope of the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code and to limit any expansion to truly extraordinary cases.”
• “Eighth Circuit caselaw ... is illustrative of a generalized reluetan-cy to expand the scope of the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code and to limit and expansion to truly extraordinary cases.”
• “Eighth Circuit caselaw . . . is illustrative of a generalized reluctancy to expand the scope of the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code and to limit any expansion to truly extraordinary cases.”
• “Eighth Circuit caselaw . . . is illustrative of a generalized reluctancy to expand the scope of the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code and to limit any expansion to truly extraordinary cases.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).