In Re Cardinal Industries, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting hypothetical test in connection with similar statutory language of § 365(e)(2)(A)
• “Section 365(e)(2), which is an exception to the ipso facto invalidation provided by § 365(e) generally, is meant to reflect the same philosophy [as Section 365(c)(1) j.”
• “Congress did not intend § 365(c)(1) to preclude assumption of an otherwise nonassignable personal service contract if the performance to be given or received 'will be the same as if no petition had been filed.' Rather ... § 365(c)(1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named In Re Cardinal Industries, Inc.

12 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• In Re Cardinal Industries, Inc.
  S.D. Ohio· 1989-10-18· cited 28×
• In Re Cardinal Industries, Inc.
  S.D. Ohio· 1990-01-04· cited 15×
• In Re Cardinal Industries, Inc.
  S.D. Ohio· 1990-09-14· cited 13×
• In Re Cardinal Industries, Inc.
  S.D. Ohio· 1989-11-29· cited 10×
• In Re Cardinal Industries, Inc.
  S.D. Ohio· 1992-02-03· cited 6×
• In Re Cardinal Industries, Inc.
  S.D. Ohio· 1993-09-16· cited 6×
• In Re Cardinal Industries, Inc.
  S.D. Ohio· 1993-02-26· cited 5×
• In Re Cardinal Industries, Inc.
  S.D. Ohio· 1993-10-12· cited 3×
• In Re Cardinal Industries, Inc.
  S.D. Ohio· 1992-07-16· cited 2×
• In Re Cardinal Industries, Inc.
  S.D. Ohio· 1992-11-02· cited 2×
• In Re Cardinal Industries, Inc.
  S.D. Ohio· 1990-01-12· cited 2×
• In re Cardinal Industries, Inc.
  S.D. Ohio· 1990-07-25