IN RE HOLYWELL CORPORATION, DEBTOR. FRED STANTON SMITH, AS TRUSTEE OF THE MIAMI CENTER LIQUIDATING TRUST, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, HOLYWELL CORPORATION, MIAMI CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, MIAMI CENTER CORPORATION, CHOPIN ASSOCIATES, THEODORE D. GOULD, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, SHUTTS & BOWEN, INTERVENOR, BANK OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE; IN RE HOLYWELL CORPORATION, DEBTOR. FRED STANTON SMITH, AS TRUSTEE OF THE MIAMI CENTER LIQUIDATING TRUST, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT, HOLYWELL CORPORATION, MIAMI CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, MIAMI CENTER CORPORATION, CHOPIN ASSOCIATES, THEODORE B. GOULD, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, SHUTTS & BOWEN, INTERVENOR, BANK OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
IN RE HOLYWELL CORPORATION, DEBTOR. FRED STANTON SMITH, AS TRUSTEE OF THE MIAMI CENTER LIQUIDATING TRUST, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, HOLYWELL CORPORATION, MIAMI CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, MIAMI CENTER CORPORATION, CHOPIN ASSOCIATES, THEODORE D. GOULD, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, SHUTTS & BOWEN, INTERVENOR, BANK OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE; IN RE HOLYWELL CORPORATION, DEBTOR. FRED STANTON SMITH, AS TRUSTEE OF THE MIAMI CENTER LIQUIDATING TRUST, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT, HOLYWELL CORPORATION, MIAMI CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, MIAMI CENTER CORPORATION, CHOPIN ASSOCIATES, THEODORE B. GOULD, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, SHUTTS & BOWEN, INTERVENOR, BANK OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
965 F.2d 994
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1992)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 11 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM: These cases are remanded to the district court for further proceedings in conformity with the United States Supreme Court’s opinion. Holywell Corporation et al v. Smith, et al., 503 U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1021, 117 L.Ed.2d 196 (1992). REMANDED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Gheila Allen v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 121 F.3d 642 (11th Cir. 1997)…l” if it is a legal element of the claim under the applicable substantive law which might affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Tipton v. Bergrohr GMBH-Siegen, 965 F. 2d 994, 998 (11th Cir.1992). “It is ‘genuine’ if the record taken as a whole could lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” Id. The basic issue before the court on a motion for summary judgment is “whether the evidence presents a suf…
-
Hickson Corp. v. N. Crossarm Co., Inc., 357 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2004)…le substantive law, it might affect the outcome of the case. Allen v. Tyson Foods, 121 F. 3d 642, 646 (11th Cir.1997) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Tipton v. Bergrohr GMBH-Siegen, 965 F. 2d 994, 998 (11th Cir.1992)). An issue of fact is “genuine” if the record taken as a whole could lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party. Id. A court must decide “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require su…
-
Reese v. Herbert, 527 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2008)…y. By opting not to deem the defendants’ statement of undisputed facts as admitted, however, the court implicitly chose to base its decision on all of the evidentiary materials in the record on summary judgment. See Tipton v. Bergrohr GMBH-Siegen, 965 F. 2d 994, 998 (11th Cir.1992) (“In opposing summary judgment, the nonmoving party may avail itself of all facts and justifiable inferences in the record taken as a whole.”); Tippens v. Celotex Corp., 805 F. 2d 949, 952 (11th Cir.1986) (“The District Court sh…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Holywell Corp. v. Smith, 503 U.S. 47 (U.S. 1992)