Empire State Building Co. v. New York Skyline, Inc. (In Re New York Skyline, Inc.)

How courts have described this case

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

• “Neither the confirmation of Skyline’s plan nor anything else that subsequently occurred deprived this Court of its subject matter jurisdiction over those claims and counterclaims.”
• “[a] court’s subject matter jurisdiction is determined at the time that the action is commenced, and subsequent events do not affect it.”
• “[e]ven the dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case does not automatically deprive the bankruptcy court of jurisdiction to determine pending matters”
• “[T]he Assumption Order directed Skyline to escrow the money to pay the attorneys’ fee claim. Although ESB's claim to attorneys’ fees is based on contract, the assumption motion was a core matter (citations omitted
• “[T]he claims and counterclaims asserted, at a minimum, ‘related to’ or were non-core claims in Skyline’s bankruptcy case. Skyline was a party to each of the claims and counterclaims, and their resolution would have a conceivable effect on Skyline’s estate.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).