References in periodicals archive ?
This concern arises due to Congress's repeated use of the phrase "courts of the United States" throughout the United States Code, and the inconsistent treatment of the bankruptcy courts with respect to the phrase.
(15) In particular, the circuit courts have taken three approaches to this question: (1) explicitly holding that the bankruptcy courts are not "courts of the United States"; (2) implicitly treating the bankruptcy courts as falling within the definition while not explicitly deciding the issue; or (3) explicitly holding that the bankruptcy courts are "courts of the United States." (16) The resulting circuit split has created a dual status within the federal system for bankruptcy courts, thus jeopardizing not only the efficiency of the courts but also their legitimacy.
Part II then outlines the circuit split within the courts of appeals as to the proper definition of "courts of the United States." Part III will analyze the statutory language, the United States Code, and the relevant historical context to determine if the bankruptcy courts qualify as "courts of the United States." This Part argues that the bankruptcy courts are "courts of the United States." Part IV will discuss, from an efficiency-based lens, the policy rationale supporting this legal conclusion.
In June of 2016, the Sixth Circuit reinvigorated the debate regarding the status of bankruptcy judges within the federal system by ruling that the bankruptcy courts are indeed "courts of the United States." (71) The case, like many before it, involved the power to issue sanctions for multiplying the proceedings unjustly under 28 U.S.C.
The Sixth Circuit's ruling in favor of bankruptcy courts qualifiying as "courts of the United States" looked to the reasoning of its sister circuits heavily.
An early decision finding that a bankruptcy court can act under a statute limiting action to "courts of the United States" is In re Cohoes Industrial Terminal, Inc.
Neubauer and Fradella present readers with the twelfth edition of their comprehensive textbook examination of the criminal justice system and courts of the United States of America.
Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani has already categorically stated in the National Assembly that: We do not believe the ISI, as an agency of the Government of Pakistan, or its present and former officials could be subjected to civil litigation in the courts of the United States and we intend to take appropriate steps to obtain dismissal of this action.
that the 1951 Treaty does not of its own force deprive the courts of the United States of jurisdiction over [the plaintiffs'] claims, it is pellucidly clear [that] the Allied Powers intended that all war-related claims against Japan be resolved through government-to-government negotiations rather than through private tort suits."
"To the extent the subsequent treaties between Japan and the governments of the [plaintiffs'] countries resolved the claims of their respective nationals, the 1951 Treaty at a minimum obliges the courts of the United States not to disregard those bilateral resolutions." [Slip op.
Hoffheimer presents readers with the third edition of his comprehensive examination of the conflict of laws and procedure in the courts of the United States. He has organized the thirty-three chapters that make up the main body of his text in nine parts devoted to status and the power of courts over persons, traditional choice of law rules, traditional problems and escape devices, modern choice of law approaches, choice of law in federal courts, international conflicts, constitutional limits, enforcing judgments, and practice and procedure.