Douglas Ellmann v. Michael James Baker

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that courts cannot disallow exemption based on debtor's fraudulent concealment of the asset alleged to be exempt
• stating that on-point Supreme Court dictum in bankruptcy case governed rather than prior panel holding, to extent the two conflicted
• stating that on-point Supreme Court dictum in bankruptcy case governed rather than prior panel holding, to extent the two conflicted
• observing that it is obligated to follow Supreme Court dicta, and that “many lower courts—including nearly all that have identified the language [in Law] as dictum—have adhered to [Law’s] pronouncements”
• recognizing lower courts’ obligation to follow Supreme Court dicta
• discussing Law v. Siegel, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1188, 188 L.Ed.2d 146 (2014) and holding that “under Siegel, bankruptcy courts do not have authority to use their equitable powers to disallow exemptions or amendments to exemptions due to bad faith or misconduct”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).