Matrix IV, Inc. v. American Nat. Bank & Trust Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that claim preclusion barred plaintiff's subsequent RICO and common law fraud action against same defendants involved in bankruptcy case where plaintiff fully \litigated and lost the very same fraud claims\
• holding that claim preclusion barred plaintiffs subsequent RICO and common law fraud action against same defendants involved in bankruptcy case where plaintiff fully \litigated and lost the very same fraud claims\
• concluding that “a letter informing the opposing party of the intent to seek sanctions and the basis for the imposition of sanctions” sent more than two years before the motion was filed was “sufficient for Rule 11 purposes” (citations omitted)
• acknowledging that “[s]ection 157(b)(2) provides a nonexhaustive list of ‘core’ proceedings”
• acknowledging that “[s]ection 157(b)(2) provides a nonexhaustive list of ‘core’ proceedings”
• noting that the action before the bankruptcy court in the Barnett case, an action to declare a trust to be the alter ego of the debtor and the assets of the trust to be property of the estate, was a core proceeding

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).