Hai Yan Chen 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, in contrast to the Takings Clause, “the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide a substantive constitutional right to compensation for damages”
• agreeing that § 364 does not apply to post-confirmation exit financing
• comparing the \best interests\ tests in Chapter 9 and Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code
• analyzing whether the city’s chapter 9 plan violated the takings clause and finding that a taking had occurred
• approving convenience class of unsecured claims of $25,000 or less for administrative convenience
• comparing tests, rejecting them, and concluding instead “that determining fairness is a matter of relying upon the judgment of conscience” as informed by “the Court’s experience and sense of morality,” as well as case circumstances and Code purposes

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).