of: Zelinsky Jr., S.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that petitioning creditors qualified under Section 303(b)(1) where their claims against the alleged debtor arose from four separate promissory notes, and the debt was disputed as to only two of the notes
• “Limiting petitioning creditors to only those claims that are of undisputed value is in line with those aims.”
• declining to “read a materiality requirement into section 303” and instead following “the straightforward reading of section 303, which places no qualifiers on the requirement that any asserted claim be free of ‘bona fide dispute as to . . . amount’” (alteration in original)
• “[Section] 841(b)(1)(E)’s provision that ‘death . . . results from the use’ of a Schedule III controlled substance requires only proof of but-for causation.”
• allegations that amount to “a dispute about the proper interpretation of 5 data” fail to state a claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).