N.D. California· 7/3/2001

In re Rose

Citations

266 B.R. 192
2001 WL 987337

How courts have described this case

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

(holding that \ 'commercial loans' as defined by § 22502\ are not covered under § 22750.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Jaroslovsky

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

T'Bear v. Forman
N.D. California· 2019-02-06· cited 7×
Desage Vs. Aw Fin. Grp., Llc
Nevada Supreme Court· 2020-04-22

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

UFITEC, S.A. v. Carter
California Supreme Court· 1977-12-08· cited 28×
Monarch Healthcare v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal· 2000-03-13· cited 24×
Shaw, Hooker & Co. v. Haisman
California Court of Appeal· 1976-06-18· cited 4×

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.