In re Ward

How courts have described this case

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

• “[T]he incurrence of debt, under the described terms and circumstances, was not in the best interests of the Debtor, not reasonable, and not consistent with sound business judgement.”
• “notice and court approval are nevertheless necessary whenever significant postpetition debt is incurred by a debtor, if for no other reason than because of the possible impact on the debtor’s plan and the debtor’s prospects for rehabilitation.”
• “As for the standard of review [for granting postpetition loans], this court believes it makes sense to use the same type of legal standard that one applies when evaluating borrowing under section 364 of the Bankruptcy Code.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In re Fields
  D. Minnesota· 2016-06-03· cited 4×
• In re Nacci
  N.D. Ohio· 2018-07-05· cited 1×

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Jacobellis v. Ohio
  Supreme Court· 1964-06-22· cited 1,335×
• Till v. SCS Credit Corp.
  Supreme Court· 2004-05-17· cited 381×
• United States Trustee v. Cortez
  Fifth Circuit· 2006-07-20· cited 79×
• Meza v. Truman (In Re Meza)
  Fifth Circuit· 2006-10-18· cited 76×
• In Re American Cooler Co.
  Second Circuit· 1942-01-17· cited 49×
• General Electric Capital Corp. v. Hoerner (In Re Grand Valley Sport & Marine, Inc.)
  W.D. Michigan· 1992-08-10· cited 23×
• In Re City Wide Press, Inc.
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 1989-07-21· cited 14×
• In re Ramos
  N.D. Texas· 2015-11-13· cited 12×