Schultz v. Albany Med. Ctr. Hosp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the list of potential parties in Section 1109 is not exclusive
• explaining that the person aggrieved standard is “more stringent” than “party-in-interest” standing in the underlying bankruptcy proceeding
• observing that “Article III standing and standing under the Bankruptcy Code are effectively coextensive”
• observing that “Article III standing and standing under the Bankruptcy Code are effectively coextensive”
• noting that parties involved in bankruptcy proceedings can lack standing to appeal
• “Persuasive authority indicates that Article III standing and standing under the Bankruptcy Code are effectively coextensive.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).