U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1974

In the Matter of Sam James Recile, Bankrupt. Sam James Recile, Bankrupt v. Albert J. Ward, Jr., Trustee for Southern Land Title Corporation, Etc.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided November 21, 1974 · Wisdom, Coleman, Simpson

503 F.2d 1374; 19 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 603; 2 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 552; 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 5956 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

James J. Morrison, James J. Morrison, Jr., New Orleans, La., for appellant., Charles Schwartz, Jr., New Orleans, La., for Albert Ward, Trustee, for So. Land, Plaza Tower & Co-Trustee, for G. Brian Corp., Edward M. Heller, New Orleans, La., for Dorothy R. Cowen, Trustee for Re-cile., Gerald J. Gallinghouse, U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., for United States.

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision. The 11 that cite it most often are listed here.

In re Analytical Systems, Inc. (United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia 1987)
Matter of Pilar Cordova Antuna (United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Missouri 1985)
International Playtex, Inc. v. Rapino (In re Rapino) (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York 1981)
Rose Glynne v. WilMed Healthcare (4th Cir. 2012)
United States v. Miguel Perez (11th Cir. 2005)
United States v. Taylor (7th Cir. 1988)
United States v. Smith (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1987)
Cypress Barn, Inc. v. Western Electric Co. (11th Cir. 1987)
Ritz v. De Stefano (In re De Stefano) (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey 1985)
In the Matter of T. C. Morrow, Bankrupt. Rowles, Winston & Company v. T. C. Morrow, Bankrupt (5th Cir. 1977)
In re Windbrooke Development Corporation, Bankrupt. Windbrooke Development Corporation v. Environmental Enterprises, Inc., of Fla. (5th Cir. 1975)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The petition for rehearing is denied. In considering the petition for rehearing, however, we noted that on page 682 of 496 F.2d we stated that certain contentions based upon Rule 6(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are “without merit, of course, since bankruptcy proceedings are not governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 6(b)(2) is therefore irrelevant”. This observation, which was not essential to the decision, is not in accord with the objectives of the Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The Advisory Committee’s Introductory Note to the Preliminary Draft of the Rules of Bankruptcy Procedures states:

“A premise in the drafting of all the rules is that the procedure in bankruptcy cases should be conformed to that prescribed for most other kinds of civil litigation in the federal courts. Thus the Preliminary Draft adheres to and particularizes the policy of General Order 37 to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in proceedings under the Act ‘as nearly as may be.’ The mode and extent of the adaptation of the Civil Rules in the Bankruptcy Rules are more fully described elsewhere in this Introductory Note. The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure have been adapted in the rules of Part VIII for the purpose of governing reviews of referees’ judgments by the district judge, and the Federal Rules of Evidence are made applicable by Rule 917 to cases and proceedings in bankruptcy.”

1 Collier, Spec.Supp.J. (19 — ). See also the Advisory Committee’s Note to Bankruptcy Rule 906(b) which states that it follows Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, with some modifications.

Accordingly, the Court’s original opinion dated June 24, 1974, is modified to conform with this opinion denying the application for a rehearing.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.