State v. B.D.H. (In re L.D.D.)

How courts have described this case

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

• holding IRS did not waive its right to collect a nondischargeable debt where 21 Chapter 11 plan provisions did not explicitly state its intended effect.
• finding that the language in a confirmed plan was “insufficiently clear to warrant overriding the interpretive rule that statutory rights can be waived only by an explicit statement.”
• confirmed plan is akin to a contract and “must be interpreted according to the rules governing the interpretation of contracts.”
• confirmed plan is akin to a contract and “must be interpreted according to the rules governing the interpretation of contracts.”
• applying California law to interpret a chapter 11 plan

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).