In Re Valdez Fisheries Development Association, Inc., Debtor. Sea Hawk Seafoods, Inc. v. State of Alaska

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that even though an agreement required the approval of the bankruptcy court, such approval alone' was insufficient to retain of jurisdiction
• explaining that if 4 a district court’s dismissal order does not explicitly retain jurisdiction or incorporate the 5 settlement terms, “enforcement of the settlement agreement is for state courts”
• explaining that if a district court’s dismissal order does 8 not explicitly retain jurisdiction or incorporate the settlement terms, “enforcement of the 9 settlement agreement is for state courts”
• noting that even when a case is dismissed under Rule 41(a)(2), which requires a court order, enforcement of the settlement 20 agreement is for state courts in the absence of a specific retention of jurisdiction
• recognizing the adoption of the Pacor test
• ancillary jurisdiction may be exercised to enable a court to vindicate its authority and effectuate its decrees

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).