Thomas v. Namba (In Re Thomas)

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that facts showing lack of good faith are more likely to emerge after the sale, thus requiring remand for findings under a Rule 60(b) motion
• remanding for determination of good faith, observing that an appellate court is ill-equipped to make findings on fact-intensive questions
• remanding for determination of good faith, observing that an appellate court is ill-equipped to make findings on fact-intensive questions
• noting difficulty of making findings as to good faith “before the really interesting facts emerge”
• “an appellate court is ill-equipped to take evidence and make findings on such a fact-intensive question as good faith”
• “While no bankruptcy judge is likely to approve a 10 sale that does not appear to be in ‘good faith,’ an actual 11 finding of ‘good faith’ is not an essential element for approval 12 of a sale under § 363(b).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).