Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Brown Vs. Gerdes

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 07, 1944

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

59 entries 8 linked 51 unlinked
Show
  1. Kalb Vs. Feuerstein US Supreme Court · Jan 02, 1940
  2. Emil Vs. Hanley US Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1943
    Relied / Followed
  3. ClaflIn Vs. Houseman US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1876
  4. Dickinson Industrial Site, Inc. Vs. Cowan US Supreme Court · Mar 11, 1940
  5. United States Vs. Chicago US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1849
  6. Watkins Vs. Sedberry US Supreme Court · Apr 09, 1923
  7. Schumacher Vs. Beeler US Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1934
  8. Hines Vs. Lowrey US Supreme Court · Nov 07, 1938
  9. U.S. 178 (1944) U.S. Supreme Court Brown v. Gerdes
    Search
  10. U.S. 178 (1944) Brown v. Gerdes
    Search
  11. to enforce and collect certain claims which the debtor had against its former officers and directors. See Gerdes v. Reynolds
    Search
  12. the establishment of more effective control over reorganization fees and expenses ( Dickinson Industrial Site, Inc. v. Cowan
    Search
  13. Callaghan v. Reconstruction
    Search
  14. resources of the estate may have on both the fairness and feasibility of the plan of reorganization. United States v. Chicago
    Search
  15. and provided a centralized control over all administration expenses, of which lawyers' fees are a part. Watkins v. Sedberry
    Search
  16. Woods v. City
    Search
  17. contains special appeal provisions governing orders granting or denying allowances. Dickinson Industrial Site, Inc. v. Cowan
    Search
  18. and confirm the plan on another basis or delegate the task to another court or agency. See Case v. Los
    Search
  19. which Congress has conferred on the bankruptcy Page 321 U. S. 184 court is paramount and exclusive. Gross v. Irving
    Search
  20. and their counsel who were appointed by the state court and who rendered service in the state proceedings. Gross v. Irving
    Search
  21. U. S. 515 , 318 U. S. 519 . Sherman v. Buckley
    Search
  22. of the district courts rests on consent of the parties, regardless of diversity of citizenship. Schumacher v. Beeler
    Search
  23. court for the prosecution of a claim is, of course, bound by the adjudication made in the state proceeding. Winchester v. Heiskell
    Search
  24. Fischer v. Pauline
    Search
  25. the performance of functions which Congress has entrusted to the bankruptcy court. See Eau Claire National Bank v. Jackman
    Search
  26. did not discriminate against those asserting rights under the federal act, such condition would be valid. Cf. Douglas v. New
    Search
  27. that New York might have refused to entertain such suits as were brought against the old management ( cf. Mondou v. New
    Search
  28. it could take jurisdiction of them but fail to apply any federal law in which those claims might be rooted. Garrett v. Moore-McCormack
    Search
  29. which Congress has imposed on the bankruptcy court could be absorbed by the state tribunal. Eau Claire National Bank v. Jackman
    Search
  30. has been entrusted to the bankruptcy court exclusively. The case is therefore controlled by the principle of Hines v. Lowrey
    Search
  31. See Continental Illinois Nat. Bank v. Chicago
    Search
  32. Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Bankers
    Search
  33. suggested by the Court in Gross v. Irving
    Search
  34. them to enforce rights no matter what the legislative source of the right may be. See, for instance, United States v. Jones
    Search
  35. Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis
    Search
  36. Murnan v. Wabash
    Search
  37. of the State creating the court, and without the power of Congress. See, for instance, Minneapolis & St. Louis R. v. Bombolis
    Search
  38. U. S. 211 . As it was put by Mr. Justice Story in Martin v. Hunter's
    Search
  39. Employers' Liability Act, and, after thorough canvass, the matter was thus summarized by Mr. Justice Holmes in Douglas v. New
    Search
  40. by the Constitution, such as those guaranteed by the Full Faith and Credit Clause, see Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis
    Search
  41. or with reference to the power exercised by Congress under the Commerce Clause, see Minneapolis & St. Louis R. v. Bombolis
    Search
  42. X, both of which must be inescapable before we even reach the constitutional issue needlessly projected. 7. Hines v. Lowrey
    Search
  43. in New York courts in the enforcement of federal rights shall not be subject to New York's fee system. I repeat, Hines v. Lowrey
    Search
  44. U.S. Supreme Court Brown v. Gerdes
    Search
  45. See Gerdes v. Reynolds
    Search
  46. See Case v. Los
    Search
  47. Gross v. Irving
    Search
  48. Sherman v. Buckley
    Search
  49. See Eau Claire National Bank v. Jackman
    Search
  50. Cf. Douglas v. New
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial