J. P. Devine Co. v. Bishopric & Lent Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that debtors may be inclined to use other agreements to divert monies under the guise of post- petition entitlement
• explaining that only postpetition earnings “that result from the debtor’s postpetition activities” are excluded and 15 proceeds that may flow from the debtor’s prepetition activities are not excluded
• “Although Welsh v. United States, 844 F.2d 1239, 1245 (6th Cir. 1988
• “Section 541, like the Bankruptcy Code generally, has two overarching pur- poses: (1) providing protection for the creditors of the insol- vent debtor and (2) permitting the debtor to carry on and re- build ….”
• result of Segal remains valid under current Bankruptcy Code
• post-petition payment under pre-petition non competition agreement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).