Personette v. Kennedy (In Re Midgard Corp.)

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that abstention does apply to removed cases and listing cases that hold the same
• holding that bankruptcy appellate panels are not “courts of appeals” referred to in sections [1334(d)] and 1452(b)
• holding that bankruptcy court’s order refusing to abstain was immediately appealable under collateral order doctrine
• holding that abstention does apply to removed cases and listing cases that hold the same
• holding that bankruptcy court erred in finding that parties seeking remand had failed to prove the “timely adjudication” element simply because they did not present evidence on the state court’s trial calendar
• finding that “abstention may apply to proceedings removed to a bankruptcy court,” and collecting cases

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).