Holmes v. Swenson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that order denying representation to class of future claimants in bankruptcy proceeding is equivalent to denial of request to intervene, and order denying right to intervene is appealable final order
• holding that \Section 1109(b) continues the pattern of permitting interested parties in bankruptcy cases the absolute right to be heard and to insure their fair representation.\
• holding that potential claimants — individuals exposed to asbestos but not manifesting symptoms— had a practical stake in the reorganization of asbestos manufacturer entitling them to party in interest standing and a voice in the reorganization proceedings
• holding that order denying representation to class of future claimants in bankruptcy proceeding is equivalent to denial of request to intervene, and order denying right to intervene is appealable final order
• explaining that future claimants “clearly have a practical stake in the outcome of the [bankruptcy] proceedings”
• explaining that future claimants “clearly have a practical stake in the outcome of the [bankruptcy] proceedings”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).