Morgan Olson L.L.C. v. Frederico (In Re Grumman Olson Industries, Inc.)

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “[cjourts have held in general that, for due process reasons, a party that did not receive adequate notice of bankruptcy proceedings could not be bound by orders issued during those proceedings”
• applying the standard of review principles of Rule 56 to a decision reviewing cross-motions for summary judgment in an adversary proceeding
• “The notice requirements of bankruptcy law are ‘founded in fundamental notions of procedural due process.’”
• “The notice requirements of bankruptcy law are ‘founded in fundamental notions of procedural due process.’”
• “Because parties holding future claims cannot possibly be identified and, thus, cannot be provided notice of the bankruptcy, courts consistently hold that, for due process reasons, their claims cannot be discharged by the bankruptcy courts’ orders.”
• “Because parties holding future claims cannot possibly be identified and, thus, cannot be provided notice of the bankruptcy, courts consistently hold that, for due process reasons, their claims cannot be discharged by the bankruptcy courts’ orders.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).