Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2005

United States Trustee, William T. Neary v. Keravision, Inc., Debtor-Appellee

United States Trustee, William T. Neary v. Keravision, Inc., Debtor-Appellee
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided September 7, 2005 · Wallace, Rawlinson, Bea
421 F.3d 1153; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 19262; 2005 WL 2140242 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

United States Trustee, William T. Neary v. Keravision, Inc., Debtor-Appellee

Opinion

*1154 JUDGMENT ORDER

ORDER

We affirm the judgment entered by the district court for the reasons stated in its opinion approving the appointment of the law firm. See In re Keravision, Inc., 273 B.R. 614 (N.D.Cal. 2002). 1 The trustee did not raise the rules of professional responsibility in challenging the law firm’s appointment before the district court. See id. at 618. Therefore, we decline to address that issue on appeal. See United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 923 (9th Cir. 2004).

AFFIRMED.

1

. We have jurisdiction over this appeal because the order awarding attorneys’ fees is a final determination of the payment to be distributed to Latham from the estate. See Yermakov v. Fitzsimmons (In re Yermakov), 718 F.2d 1465, 1469 (9th Cir. 1983).

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

↑