United States v. Christopher Conrad

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that although the debtor informed his bankruptcy attorney about his pending lawsuit, “the attorney’s omission is no panacea”
• holding that debtor lacks standing to pursue action even over unscheduled claims
• holding that debtor’s request for reinstatement was not barred by judicial estoppel
• explaining that instead of fully disclosing the nature of her pending suit, the debtor “dissembled to the trustee and indicated that her discrimination claim had no monetary value”
• explaining that the “failure to meet the specific inadvertence criteria” does not “automatically impl[y] an intent to make a mockery of the judicial system” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• explaining that the “failure to meet the specific inadvertence criteria” does not “automatically impl[y] an intent to make a mockery of the judicial system” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).