28 U.S.C. § 157

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a complaint seeking an injunction to protect reorganization as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

Apollo Molded Products, Inc. v. Kleinman (In Re Apollo Molded Products, Inc.) · filed 1988-03-03(b)(2)(A)

A complaint seeking an injunction to protect the reorganizational process, moreover, is a core proceeding as a matter “concerning administration of the estate” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats proceedings to determine interests in estate or debtor property as core proceedings that a bankruptcy judge may finally decide, subject to appeal.

First State Bank of Wykoff v. Grell (In Re Grell) · filed 1988-03-04(b)(2)(K)

In conclusion on the first issue: if the property described in Counts Two, Three, Four and Nine is estate property or property of the Debtor, then the District Court has jurisdiction over those causes of actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1334; they are core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K); and, the Bankruptcy Judge can hear and finally determine the issues subject to appeal.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) allows a bankruptcy court to hear and determine an adversary proceeding challenging the validity of a prejudgment attachment as a core proceeding.

Gateway Center Building Investors, Ltd. v. Paric Corp. (In re Gateway Center Building Investors, Ltd.) · filed 1988-03-07(b)(2)(K)

This is a “core proceeding” which the Court may hear and determine pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K).

Section 157(b)(2)(L) treats confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan as a core proceeding.

In Re Ashton · filed 1988-03-09(b)(2)(L)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L).

Section 157(b)(2)(H) treats fraudulent conveyance proceedings as core proceedings that are not subject to de novo appellate review.

IMF Sales Associates, Inc. v. Racal-Vadic Information Systems, Inc. (In re IMF Sales Associates, Inc.) · filed 1988-03-10(b)(2)(H)

The Fosko adversary was a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H) and is not subject to de novo appellate review.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats a dispute over the validity and priority of an attachment lien as a core bankruptcy matter.

In Re Great Lakes Steel & Fabricating Industries, Inc. · filed 1988-03-14(b)(2)(K)

We have jurisdiction to hear this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and Local Rule 45, and determine it to be a core matter under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K).

Section 157(b)(2)(G) treats a motion to lift the automatic stay as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Warner Robins v. Standard Building Associates, Ltd. (In Re Standard Building Assoc · filed 1988-03-15(b)(2)(G)

Based upon the evidence presented and the record herein, the court finds this matter to constitute a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. Section 157(b)(2)(G).

Section 157 treats a bankruptcy attorney’s fee application as a core proceeding.

In Re Hogg · filed 1988-03-18

The Court considered this matter to be a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) classifies matters concerning the administration of a bankruptcy estate as core proceedings.

Gilbert v. Suburban Athletic Club (In Re Dayton Circuit Courts 2) · filed 1988-03-18(b)(2)(A)

This proceeding, which arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) in a case referred to this court by the Standing Order Of Reference entered in this district on July 30, 1984, is determined to be a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) — matters concerning the administration of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings to adjust the debtor–equity security holder relationship or recover estate property as core proceedings.

Lowin v. Lear (In Re Securities Group 1980) · filed 1988-03-22(b)(2)

On its face, the Complaint suggests an action that could be characterized as the adjustment of the debtor-equity security holder relationship or for turnover property of the estate. Both kinds of action are core proceedings. ... The Court finds nothing in the record at this time to suggest that the reference to the Bankruptcy Court should be withdrawn.

Section 157(b)(2) treats actions to adjust the debtor-equity security holder relationship or recover estate property as core proceedings.

Lowin v. P.M. Associates (In Re Securities Group) · filed 1988-03-22(b)(2)

On its face, the Complaint suggests an action that could be characterized as the adjustment of the debtor-equity security holder relationship or for turnover property of the estate. Both kinds of action are core proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats an objection to the allowance of a creditor’s claim as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

In re Jones · filed 1988-03-22(b)(2)(B)

This is a core proceeding under provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), with jurisdiction further conferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and General Order No. 84 of this District.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) covers proceedings concerning a debtor’s exemption as core bankruptcy proceedings.

In Re Baldwin · filed 1988-03-23(b)(2)(B)

This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b) treats disputes over a chapter 7 trustee’s proposed asset distribution as core proceedings.

Heckathorn Construction Co. v. Bass Mechanical Contractors, Inc. (In Re Bass Mechanical Contractors, Inc.) · filed 1988-03-23(b)

The pending contested matters and chapter 7 trustee’s motion are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2)(I) classifies determinations of whether particular debts are dischargeable as core proceedings.

Berryman v. Smith (In Re Smith) · filed 1988-03-23(b)(2)(I)

Further, “determinations as to the dischargeability of particular debts” are expressly set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I) as being core proceedings and where no jury trial is mandated.

Section 157(b)(2)(L) treats plan confirmation as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

In Re Texaco Inc. · filed 1988-03-23(b)(2)(L)

This is a core proceeding in accordance with 28 U.S. C. § 157(b)(2)(L).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats turnover actions as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Levine v. Levine (In Re Levine) · filed 1988-03-25(b)(2)(E)

A turnover action, which requires an adversary proceeding under Bankruptcy Rule 7001(1), is a core proceeding in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E), and is within the original, but not exclusive, jurisdiction of the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), which then refers such jurisdiction to this court under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).

Section 157 treats a proceeding with both core and noncore matters as related to the bankruptcy case when its noncore matters predominate.

Gagel v. Kingston-Greene Partners, Ltd. (In Re GWF Investment, Ltd.) · filed 1988-03-25(b)(3)

Measured against Northern Pipeline’s prohibition of non-Art. Ill judges adjudicating peripheral, non-traditional bankruptcy issues, it is this court’s opinion that a bankruptcy court should not decide an adversary proceeding with both “core” and “non-core” matters, unless the core aspects of the adversary proceeding are heavily predominant and the “non-core” aspects are insignificant. ... Viewed as a whole, the complaint is predominantly concerned with noncore matters and should be treated as a “related to” proceeding.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a related-to, non-core proceeding and submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court.

Frontier Airlines, Inc. v. Frontier Airlines, Inc. Retirement Plan for Pilots Pension Board (In Re Frontier Airlines, In · filed 1988-03-28(c)(1)

Clearly the case is “related to” this bankruptcy case and this Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter as a non-core matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), unless the Court’s jurisdiction is preempted by the jurisdictional provisions of ERISA. ... The order of reference is sufficient to vest in this Court the jurisdiction and authority to hear the ERISA issues as a part of the “related to” proceeding herein and to enter proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for submission to the District Court.

Section 157(b)(3) classifies a state-law contract dispute that could be brought outside bankruptcy as a related, noncore proceeding.

Lower Brule Construction Co. v. Sheesley's Plumbing & Heating Co. · filed 1988-03-30(b)(3)

As this is a matter of state contract law, the complaint initiates a non-core proceeding in bankruptcy. ... Thus, the bankruptcy court was correct in concluding that the adversary proceeding was a “related matter” under section 157(b)(3).

Section 157(b)(2)(G) and (K) treats proceedings involving relief from the automatic stay and lien priority as core proceedings.

Iron Peddlers, Inc. v. Ivie & Associates, Inc. (In Re Ivie & Associates, Inc.) · filed 1988-03-17(b)(2)(G), (b)(2)(K)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 157(b)(2)(G) and (K).

Section 157 treats proceedings to turn over estate property and determine the validity or priority of liens in that property as core proceedings.

Brake v. Tavormina (In re Beverly Manufacturing Corp.) · filed 1988-03-28(b)(2)(E), (K)

As such, the adversary complaint was a pure "core” proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E), (k).

Section 157(b)(2) identifies core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Huang v. Pioneer Savings Bank, Inc. (In Re Tara of North Hills) · filed 1988-04-01(b)(2)

This is a “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) which this court may hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2)(F) classifies proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover preferences as core proceedings.

Bush v. Camp Hosiery (In Re Metropolitan Co.) · filed 1988-04-04(b)(2)(F)

This proceeding, which arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) in a case referred to this court by the Standing Order Of Reference entered by this district on July 30, 1984, is determined to be a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F) — proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover preferences.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) grants core status only where treating the proceeding as core is consistent with constitutional requirements.

Sonnyco Coal, Inc. v. Bartley (In Re Sonnyco Coal, Inc.) · filed 1988-04-06(b)(2)(O)

This Court finds that subsection 0 of § 157(b)(2) conveys core status only upon matters for which such inclusion would be consistent with the requirements of the Constitution and Northern Pipeline.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a motion to change venue or transfer a bankruptcy case as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

In Re Sundance Corp. · filed 1988-04-06(b)(2)(A)

A motion for change of venue or to transfer a case, is a “matter concerning the administration of the estate” under 28 U.S. C. § 157(b), and, as such, is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats proceedings to enforce the automatic stay and bankruptcy court orders as core matters.

Dubin v. Jakobowski (In Re Stephen W. Grosse, P.C.) · filed 1988-04-08(b)(2)(A)

This court has jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding as a core matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) insofar as it relates to enforcement of the automatic stay and orders duly entered by this court.

A motion to lift the automatic stay is a core proceeding on which the bankruptcy court may enter an order.

In Re Mitchell · filed 1988-04-11(b)(2)(G)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3), the court finds that this is a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G) and (0). Accordingly, the court shall enter its order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats proceedings to determine whether particular debts are dischargeable as core proceedings.

Franklin State Bank v. Lippert (In Re Lippert) · filed 1988-04-12(b)(2)(I)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats objections to claims as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Zodiac Enterprises, Inc. v. Kamareddine (In re Zodiac Enterprises, Inc.) · filed 1988-04-12(b)(2)(B)

The objection to claim is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(1) does not classify a creditor’s fee dispute with an indenture trustee as a core proceeding when the dispute neither invokes a Bankruptcy Code right nor could arise only in bankruptcy.

New York Life Insurance v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. (In Re Texaco Inc.) · filed 1988-04-28(b)(1)

Accordingly, NYL’s adversary proceeding does not arise under or arise in a case under title 11 as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and is not a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

A dispute over a debtor’s claimed exemption is a core proceeding under § 157(b).

In Re Starr · filed 1988-04-28(b)

1. This matter is a “core” proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2) treats an adversary proceeding seeking relief from the automatic stay as a core matter.

Halliburton Co. v. William A. Smith Construction Co. (In Re William A. Smith Construction Co.) · filed 1988-04-29(b)(2)

This adversary proceeding is a core matter under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A), (G), and (0).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a motion to transfer venue of a bankruptcy case as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

In Re Pope Vineyards · filed 1988-05-02(b)(2)(A)

A motion to transfer venue is a “matter concerning the .administration of the estate” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and as such is a “core” proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(F) treats proceedings to recover preferential transfers as core bankruptcy proceedings.

DuVoisin v. Anderson (In Re Southern Industrial Banking Corp.) · filed 1988-05-03(b)(2)(F)

This is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F).

Section 157(b) treats a determination to transfer venue as a core proceeding.

NBA International Banking Corp. v. Kersting (In Re Kersting) · filed 1988-05-04(b)

A determination of the transfer of venue is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2) treats objections to discharge and dischargeability as core proceedings; the state common law counterclaims at issue were non-core.

Braun v. Zarling (In Re Zarling) · filed 1988-05-04(b)(2)

The causes of action in the complaint arise pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) and are core proceedings. The counterclaims are based exclusively on the common law of Wisconsin and are non-core. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2)'s core proceedings include equitable subordination and reclamation claims under the Bankruptcy Code.

American Cigar Co. v. MNC Commercial Corp. (In Re M. Paolella & Sons, Inc.) · filed 1988-05-11(b)(2)(A), (O)

Thus, a court may easily conclude that proceedings under 11 U.S.C. §§ 510(c), 546(c) fall within the catch-all provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (O) without expanding those provisions beyond constitutional recognition. ... Somewhat reluctantly, I conclude that counts I, II, and V are core proceedings while counts III and IV are related proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2) covers motions concerning whether an agreement involving a debtor can be assigned as core proceedings.

Sentry Data, Inc. v. Control Data Corp. (In Re Sentry Data, Inc.) · filed 1988-05-11(b)(2)

The motions are core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (E), (N), (0).

Section 157 treats orders approving disclosure statements as core proceedings.

Texas Extrusion Corp. v. Lockheed Corp. (In re Texas Extrusion Corp.) · filed 1988-05-12

Since orders approving disclosure statements are “core proceedings” under 28 U.S.C. § 157, ... issues of law de novo.

Section 157(b)(2)(B), (K), and (L) treats an objection to a mortgage arrears claim as a core proceeding.

In Re Stamper · filed 1988-04-13(b)(2)(B), (K), and (L)

This is, of course, a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(B), (K) and (L).

Section 157(b)(2)(I) and (J) treats discharge determinations as core proceedings, supporting a bankruptcy judge’s authority to hear a contempt complaint enforcing the discharge injunction.

Hamilton Allied Corp. v. Kerkau Manufacturing Co. (In Re Hamilton Allied Corp.) · filed 1988-05-12(b)(2)(I) and (J)

Congress clearly regarded the granting or denial of a discharge as a “core” proceeding to be adjudicated by a bankruptcy judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I) and (J). ... On the basis of statutory authority and consistent with Congressional intent and rules promulgated by the Supreme Court, the court finds that it has jurisdiction to determine plaintiff’s complaint for contempt.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats a dischargeability proceeding as core and authorizes the bankruptcy court to hear and determine it.

National Bank of Miami v. Lacey (In Re Lacey) · filed 1988-05-16(b)(2)(I)

This is a core proceeding in which the Court is authorized to hear and determine all matters relating to this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine objections to claims as a core proceeding.

In Re St. Louis Globe-Democrat, Inc. · filed 1988-05-18(b)(2)(B)

This is a “core proceeding" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), which the Court may hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings concerning discharge, exemptions, and avoidance of transfers as core proceedings.

Govaert v. Primack (In Re Primack) · filed 1988-05-23(b)(2)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b) treats proceedings seeking turnover of estate property or avoidance of preferential payments as core proceedings.

Barry v. Arkansas, Department of Finance & Administration (In re Wieser) · filed 1988-05-24(b)(1)

Moreover, the Court finds that it is a “core proceeding” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) as exemplified in 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(E) and (F).

Section 157(b)(2) classifies proceedings involving dischargeability and allowance of claims as core proceedings.

Aerni v. Columbus Federal Savings (In Re Aerni) · filed 1988-05-26(b)(2)

The counterclaim is a core proceeding, however, since it involves issues of dischargeability and the allowance of the claim asserted by the defendant. Since the counterclaim is a core proceeding, it is properly adjudicated in bankruptcy court under 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a debtor’s motion to reject a collective bargaining agreement as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

In Re Texas Sheet Metals, Inc. · filed 1988-05-26(b)(2)(A)

The debtor’s motion to reject its collective bargaining agreements is clearly a matter concerning the administration of the estate within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. Section 157(b)(2)(A) and therefore a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(F) classifies an adversary proceeding to recover preferential transfers as a core proceeding.

Allegheny, Inc. v. Basic Packaging Systems, Inc. (In Re Allegheny, Inc.) · filed 1988-05-27(b)(2)(F)

This Adversary case constitutes a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F).

A contested matter turning on the interpretation and application of a specific Title 11 provision is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(1).

In Re Cooley · filed 1988-05-27(b)(1)

Since the disputed issue turns on the interpretation and application of a specific provision of Title 11, the proceeding is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157 treats a dispute over a debtor’s liability for assessed taxes as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Overland National Bank of Grand Island v. Olson (In Re Olson) · filed 1988-06-03

The parties agreed and the Court finds that this matter is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157.

A proceeding to determine whether a debt is dischargeable is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(I).

Jefferson Bank of Missouri v. Trippensee (In re Trippensee) · filed 1988-06-03(b)(2)(I)

Although this matter is a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I), this court has the “discretion to abstain if abstention is in the interest of justice, or in the interest of comity with state courts or respect for state law”.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine a core proceeding concerning review of a debtor’s attorney’s fees.

In Re Fullen · filed 1988-06-06(b)(2)(A)

This is a core proceeding which the Court may hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats proceedings to determine whether a debt is dischargeable as core proceedings.

Kemba Columbus Credit Union, Inc. v. Short (In re Short) · filed 1988-06-06(b)(2)(I)

This is a core proceeding arising under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), and (2)(I).

Section 157 treats a dispute over Chapter 12 plan treatment of tax claims as a core proceeding.

In Re Krump · filed 1988-06-07

This matter constitutes a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Orders approving disclosure statements are core proceedings under § 157.

Texas Extrusion Corp. v. Lockheed Corp. (In re Texas Extrusion Corp.) · filed 1988-06-07

Since orders approving disclosure statements are "core proceedings" under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157, a district court in reviewing such orders applies the "clearly erroneous" standard to findings of fact and considers issues of law de novo.

Section 157(b)(2)(L) treats plan confirmation as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

In Rer Turner · filed 1988-06-09(b)(2)(L)

This is a core proceeding arising under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L).

Section 157 treats plan confirmation as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

In Re Keffer · filed 1988-06-09(b)(2)(L)

This is a core proceeding which the Court may hear and determine. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), and (b)(2)(L).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) and (K) do not cover a debtor’s appeal from the denial of state mortgage assistance.

Perry v. Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency (In Re Perry) · filed 1988-06-10(b)(2)(B), (K)

Clearly, the proceeding here does not implicate 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(B) and (K), as did the proceeding in issue in Gurst, and it does not involve issues so fundamentally related to administration of the estate as the proceeding in United Church.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) permits this district’s bankruptcy court to treat venue transfer motions as core matters heard under the district court’s § 157(a) order of reference.

In Re Bell Tower Associates, Ltd. · filed 1988-05-26(b)(2)(A)

Although there remains some debate as to whether a bankruptcy court can directly order a transfer of venue to another district, in this District such motions are treated its core matters under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) which are heard pursuant to the District Court’s order of reference under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).

Section 157(b)(2) treats a proceeding to determine the validity and extent of a lien on a debtor’s homestead as a core proceeding.

Jackson v. West (In Re Jackson) · filed 1988-06-01(b)(2)(E), (O)

Plaintiff asserted and this Court agrees that it has jurisdiction to determine the rights of the parties hereto as this is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E) and (0).

Section 157(b)(2)'s listed categories do not make a proceeding core unless it also meets the definition in § 157(b)(1).

Wm. S. Newman Brewing Co. v. C. Schmidt & Sons, Inc. (In Re Wm. S. Newman Brewing Co.) · filed 1988-06-13(b)(2)

Notwithstanding the fact that this action technically falls within the literal wording of § 157(b)(2), the Court concludes that it is not a core proceeding. The listed categories of § 157(b)(2) must be read in light of the definition of core proceeding provided in § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats determinations of the extent, nature, and priority of a creditor’s claim as core proceedings.

In Re Jartran, Inc. · filed 1988-06-13(b)(2)(B)

An action to determine the extent, nature, and priority of a creditor’s claim against a debtor’s estate is a “core proceeding” under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(1) and (b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b) treats this proceeding to decide stay relief and secured status as a core proceeding.

In re WPRV-TV, Inc. · filed 1988-06-15(b)

1. This is a “core” proceeding as envisioned by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2)(G) treats a motion to lift the automatic stay as a core proceeding.

U.S. Cylinders, Inc. v. Vital Breathing Products, Inc. (In Re Vital Breathing Products, Inc.) · filed 1988-06-21(b)(2)(G)

Before the court is the motion to lift stay brought by U.S. Cylinders, Inc. (“movant”). This matter is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 157(b)(2)(G).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) classify these summary judgment motions in discharge and dischargeability proceedings as core proceedings.

Glick v. Mirus (In Re Mirus) · filed 1988-06-21(b)(2)(A), (O)

Both motions constitute core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (0).

Section 157(b) treats objections to discharge and dischargeability as core proceedings.

Citizens Bank of Jonesboro v. Anglin (In Re Anglin) · filed 1988-06-23(b)(2)

Moreover, the Court finds that it is a “core proceeding” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) as exemplified in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(J) and (I).

Section 157(b)(2)(L) covers a dispute over the amount of a secured claim reserved during plan confirmation as a core proceeding.

In Re Bellman Farms, Inc. · filed 1988-06-24(b)(2)(L)

The Court finds that the matter is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a post-petition contract claim arising from administration of the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

Edgcomb Metals Co. v. Eastmet Corp. · filed 1988-06-30(b)(2)(A)

In these circumstances, this Court, like the First Circuit, has no trouble holding that the post-petition claim in suit falls within the literal wording of section 157(b)(2)(A) and perhaps section 157(b)(2)(0), as well.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) classifies proceedings to determine the validity, priority, or extent of liens as core proceedings.

Radice Corp. v. First National Bank of Boston (In Re Radice Corp.) · filed 1988-06-30(b)(2)(K)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K) and governed by Part VII of the Bankruptcy Rules pursuant to, Rule 7001(2) and (9).

Section 157(b)(2) treats this proceeding to determine whether a debt is dischargeable as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Capital City Bank & Trust v. Kroh (In Re Kroh) · filed 1988-07-08(b)(2)(B) and (I)

This matter is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and (I).

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats proceedings to determine the dischargeability of debts as core proceedings.

North Shore Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Jones (In Re Jones) · filed 1988-07-08(b)(2)(I)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I).

Section 157(b)(2)(E), (F), and (O) classifies an adversary proceeding to recover a postpetition transfer and preferences as a core proceeding.

Baumgart v. National City Bank (In re Wright Airlines Inc.) · filed 1988-07-01(b)(2)(E), (F), (O)

This adversary constitutes a core proceeding under provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E), (F) and (O), with jurisdiction further conferred under provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1334, 11 U.S.C. §§ 549, 551 and General Order No. 84 of this District.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine core proceedings involving exemptions and liens.

In Re Bowen · filed 1988-07-07(b)(2)(B), (G), and (K)

This is a “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), (G), and (K), which the Court may hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2) classifies the debtor’s motions as core proceedings.

Quattrone Accountants, Inc. v. United States (In Re Quattrone Accountants, Inc.) · filed 1988-07-12(b)(2)(A), (B), (K) and (O)

Debtor's motions are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (B), (K) and (O).

Section 157(b)(2) does not make a state court lien action a core proceeding when it involves parties outside the bankruptcy court and property no longer in the estate.

In Re Memphis-Friday's Associates · filed 1988-07-13(b)(2)

Because that suit involves parties not before this court and property which is no longer property of this estate, the court concludes that the state action would not be core under 28 U.S.C. Section 157(b)(2).

Section 157 does not treat a proceeding to confirm or vacate a labor arbitration award as a core proceeding when that action exists independently of bankruptcy law.

Brodsky v. Local 282, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (In Re Marine Pollution Service, Inc.) · filed 1988-07-14(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(L)

The proceeding before the Bankruptcy Court was simply one to confirm or vacate a labor arbitration. Such an action may be brought routinely by a labor organization or by an employer under 29 U.S.C. § 185; it has a very active “life of its own” outside the federal bankruptcy laws. Therefore, it was not a “core proceeding” within 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) permits a bankruptcy court to finally determine a trustee’s motion to approve a settlement as a core proceeding.

In Re Hanson Industries, Inc. · filed 1988-07-18(b)(2)(A)

This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 and Local Rule 103 to hear and finally determine this matter. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats a proceeding to determine dischargeability of a debt as a core proceeding that the bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Flora Bank & Trust v. Balch (In re Balch) · filed 1988-07-18(b)(2)(I)

This is a “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I), which the Court may hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) classifies proceedings to determine the dischargeability of debts as core proceedings.

United States v. Perea (In re Perea) · filed 1988-07-18(b)(2)(I)

This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I).

A motion to reopen a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(A).

In Re Karamitsos · filed 1988-07-19(b)(2)(A)

This matter is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2) identifies matters concerning estate administration, lien priority, and liquidation of estate assets as core proceedings.

In Re Chicago Lutheran Hospital Ass'n · filed 1988-07-20(b)(2)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) as a matter concerning the administration of this estate, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K) as relating to the priority of liens, and 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0) as affecting the liquidation of the assets of this estate.

Section 157(b) treats Chapter 12 plan confirmation as a core matter.

In Re Lairmore · filed 1988-07-22(b)

This is a “core” matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157 treats a contempt proceeding concerning interference with a debtor’s reorganization as a core proceeding, even when the underlying contract predates the bankruptcy petition.

In Re Newport Offshore, Ltd. · filed 1988-07-22

At the outset, it is our determination that this is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats a proceeding concerning the dischargeability of debts as a core proceeding.

Behrens v. Ass'n · filed 1988-07-26(b)(2)(I)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I) as a matter relating to the dischargeability of debts.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a debtor’s motion to avoid a mechanics’ lien as a core proceeding.

In Re Ramsey · filed 1988-07-27(b)(2)

This matter is determined to be a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E) — determination of the validity, extent, or priority of liens — and (0) — other proceedings affecting the adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) treats an adversary proceeding to avoid allegedly fraudulent transfers as a core proceeding.

Falk v. Hecker (In Re Falk) · filed 1988-07-27(b)(2)(H)

Falk also filed this adversary proceeding on September 14, 1987, alleging that certain payments made to Elaine S. Hecker as part of a state court dissolution judgment and decree are avoidable fraudulent transfers pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(2). ... This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H).

Section 157(b)(3) requires the bankruptcy court to classify a state-law ownership dispute that could have been brought in state court as non-core when it is before the court only because a party is a debtor.

Norton v. Corkle (In re Norton) · filed 1988-07-27(b)(3)

The Court concludes that this adversary proceeding is a non-core matter. The plaintiffs’ request for a declaratory judgment of the parties’ ownership interests arises solely under state substantive law. The action could have been brought in state court. It is only before the Bankruptcy Court now because one of the parties is a debtor in bankruptcy. For these same reasons, the defendants’ counterclaim for the return of the mobile home and damages or rent is a non-core matter.

Section 157(b) covers core bankruptcy proceedings, including the proceeding on the debtor’s borrowing motion and creditors’ dismissal motion.

In re Johnston Energy, Inc. · filed 1988-07-28(b)

This is a “core” proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b) authorizes bankruptcy judges to hear and determine core proceedings.

Sure-Snap Corp. v. New Jersey Life Insurance (In re Sure-Snap Corp.) · filed 1988-08-02(b)

This is a core proceeding in which the Court is authorized to hear and determine all matters relating to this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats matters concerning administration of a bankruptcy estate as core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Hicks v. Turchin (In re 1 Con-Struct Corp.) · filed 1988-08-02(b)(2)(A)

This is a core proceeding in which the Court is authorized to hear and determine all matters relating to this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats dischargeability actions as core proceedings in which a bankruptcy judge may enter a final order.

Caughenbaugh v. Caughenbaugh (In Re Caughenbaugh) · filed 1988-08-03(b)(2)(I)

This dis-chargeability action is a core proceeding in which this bankruptcy judge may enter a final order. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I).

A proceeding that turns on interpreting a prior court order applying a Title 11 provision is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2).

First City National Bank of Houston v. Cooley (In Re Cooley) · filed 1988-08-03(b)(2)

Since its resolution turns on the interpretation of a prior court order, which in turn interpreted and applied a specific provision of Title 11, the proceeding is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (0) and Fifth Circuit precedent.

Section 157 excludes a claim from bankruptcy court jurisdiction when it is neither a core proceeding nor related to the bankruptcy case.

Roebuck v. Steuart · filed 1988-08-03

This cross-claim, therefore, was neither a “core proceeding” nor a “related proceeding” within the meaning of § 157 and was beyond the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court.

A claim objection remains a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(B) when the parties use formal pleadings to clarify the issues.

Gulf States Exploration Co. v. Manville Forest Products Corp. (In Re Manville Forest Products Corp.) · filed 1988-08-05(b)(2)(B)

The restructuring of the contested matter papers into formal pleadings so as to focus the issues, does not in any way alter the fundamental claims dispute nature of this matter which is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(3) permits a bankruptcy court to determine that a proceeding involving Title 11 questions of law is a core proceeding.

Wayne H. Coloney Co. v. US Dept. of Air Force · filed 1988-08-08(b)(3)

The issues raised in this case involve Title 11 questions of law; therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3), the Court has determined that this is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2)(C) treats an estate’s counterclaim against a creditor’s claim against the estate as a core proceeding.

Southern States Cooperative, Inc. v. Townsend Grain & Feed Co. (In Re L.B. Trucking, Inc.) · filed 1988-08-08(b)(2)(C)

The counterclaim to the amended complaint is a counterclaim by the estate against Southern States’ claim against the estate. As such it falls within the definition of a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(C).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats an application for attorney compensation in a bankruptcy case as a core proceeding on which the bankruptcy court may enter a final judgment.

In Re Westside Creek Ltd. Partnership · filed 1988-08-09(b)(2)(A)

The proceeding before the Court is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). The Court has jurisdiction to enter a final judgment in the case.

Section 157(b)(2) treats motions concerning objections to the allowance of claims as core proceedings.

In re Candy Braz, Inc. · filed 1988-08-09(b)(2)(B)

These motions constitute core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (B), (0).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats proceedings concerning the allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate as core proceedings.

In Re Precision Carwash Corp. · filed 1988-08-11(b)(2)(B)

This is a core proceeding because it concerns the “allowance or disal-lowance of claims against the estate.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

An adversary proceeding to enforce a debtor’s discharge is a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy judge may enter a final order adjudicating civil contempt.

Bowen v. Residential Financial Corp. (In Re Bowen) · filed 1988-08-17(b)(2)(O)

As a proceeding to effectuate Plaintiffs discharge, the fundamental bankruptcy remedy adjusting the debtor-creditor relationship, this adversary proceeding is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0). This Court clearly has the power to enter a final order adjudicating the contempt issue here, subject to the limitations of BANKR.R. 9020(c).

Section 157(b) treats an objection to a proof of claim as a core bankruptcy matter.

In re WPRV-TV, Inc. · filed 1988-08-18(b)

1. This is a “core” matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a motion to change venue as a core matter that a bankruptcy court may hear.

In Re Texaco Inc. · filed 1988-08-22(b)(2)(A)

A motion for a change of venue is a core matter under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) which may be heard by the bankruptcy court pursuant to the district court’s order of reference under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).

A trustee’s application to incur secured debt is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(A) and (D).

In Re Chicago, Missouri & Western Railway Co. · filed 1988-08-24(b)(2)(A), (D)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (D).

Section 157 treats contempt proceedings as core matters that bankruptcy judges may decide and sanction.

Haile v. New York State Higher Education Services Corp. · filed 1988-08-24(b)

For the foregoing reasons I hold that the power to make contempt findings and impose sanctions thereon rests within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court and a contempt proceeding is a core matter for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a proceeding to determine a creditor’s claim as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Kraus-Thomson Organization, Ltd. v. McCorhill Publishing, Inc. (In Re McCorhill Publishing, Inc.) · filed 1988-08-25(b)(2)(B)

This is a core proceeding in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine a proceeding to subordinate a creditor’s claims as a core proceeding.

Rimmel v. Morian (In Re Franview Drug Corp.) · filed 1988-08-25(b)(2)

This is a “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and (0), which the Court may hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a claim against bankruptcy trustees as core to the extent recovery would come from reserved estate assets.

Weeks v. Kramer (In Re Weeks Securities, Inc.) · filed 1988-08-26(b)(2)

The Court concludes that the cause of action against the co-trustees is core, at least in part, under 28 U.S.C. Section 157(b)(2)(A), (B), and (0). ... Nevertheless, Ms. Weeks’ core claim against the co-trustees is just that — a claim, and to the extent this Court’s final order of February 19, 1987, directed any recovery against the reserved estate assets, the cause of action is core.

Section 157(b) treats a debtor’s motion to assume unexpired leases as a core bankruptcy matter.

In Re Mako, Inc. · filed 1988-08-26(b)

1. This is a “core” matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) and final determination is founded upon the guidelines within Bankruptcy Rule 7056.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats proceedings to determine the dischargeability of a debt as core proceedings.

Stone v. Stone (In Re Stone) · filed 1988-08-29(b)(2)(I)

This is a core proceeding in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats objections to claimed exemptions as core proceedings in which a bankruptcy court may enter a final order.

In Re Savage · filed 1988-08-29(b)(2)(B)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) in which this Court may enter a final order.

Section 157 treats a proceeding to determine the dischargeability of a debt as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy judge may hear and determine.

National Acceptance Co. of America v. Bathalter (In re Bathalter) · filed 1988-08-30(b)(2)(I)

This is a core proceeding which the Court may hear and determine. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) and (b)(2)(I).

Section 157(b)(2) treats a malpractice claim concerning debtor’s counsel’s principally postpetition conduct relating to estate administration as a core proceeding.

Leonard v. Wessel (In Re Jackson) · filed 1988-09-06(b)(2)

This is because, in BAFJA, Congress chose to define core proceedings by a non-exclusive list of certain types of proceedings set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). ... The instant proceeding, although somewhat vague in setting forth the Defendants’ alleged wrongdoings and the relationship of same to the progress of the Chapter 7 cases, clearly appears to relate principally to actions taken by the Defendants after the filing of the initial bankruptcy case. ... We therefore conclude that this matter is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine core proceedings concerning claims and dischargeability.

Wisconsin Barge Lines, Inc. v. United States (In Re Wisconsin Barge Lines, Inc.) · filed 1988-09-08(b)(2)

This is a “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), (I) and (J), which the Court may hear and determine.

Section 157 treats a preference avoidance proceeding as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Luper v. Southeastern Equipment Co. (In re Walls) · filed 1988-09-08(b)(2)(F)

This is a core proceeding which the Court may hear and determine. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) and (2)(F).

Section 157(b)(2) treats motions concerning the allowance of a bankruptcy claim as core proceedings.

In Re Candy Braz, Inc. · filed 1988-09-09(b)(2)(A), (B), (O)

These motions constitute core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (B), (O).

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats a complaint to except a specific debt from discharge as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy judge may enter a final order.

Ward v. Roberson (In Re Roberson) · filed 1988-09-12(b)(2)(I)

This complaint, which seeks to except a specific debt from the operation of the discharge in bankruptcy granted to the defendant, is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I) and is a matter in which this Bankruptcy Judge may enter a final order.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) permits bankruptcy courts to hear and determine dischargeability disputes as core proceedings.

Berry v. Mullin (In Re Mullin) · filed 1988-09-13(b)(2)(I)

This is a core proceeding in which the Court is authorized to hear and determine all matters relating to this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I).

Section 157(b)(2)(L) treats confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan as a core proceeding.

In Re Wood · filed 1988-09-13(b)(2)(L)

This matter, involving the confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan, is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) and (G) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine core proceedings concerning claims and the automatic stay.

Apex Oil Co. v. United States Department of Energy (In Re Apex Oil Co.) · filed 1988-09-16(b)(2)(B), (G)

This is a “core proceeding”, which the Court may hear and determine pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), and (G).

Section 157 treats motions for relief from stay and to sell estate property free and clear of liens as core proceedings.

In Re Specialty Foods of Pittsburgh, Inc. · filed 1988-09-16

The matters before the court are a Motion for Relief from Stay filed on behalf of Tambellini Foods, Inc. (hereafter Tambellini) at Motion No. 88-1309 and a Motion to Sell Personal Property of the Estate, Including License Agreement, Free and Clear of Liens filed by the Trustee at Motion No. 88-1503. These are core proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings concerning the allowance of claims and the validity of liens as core bankruptcy matters.

Peterson v. Cousineau (In Re Peterson) · filed 1988-09-16(b)(2)(B) and (K)

This proceeding is a core matter under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and (K).

Section 157 treats a claim against the estate arising during administration of the bankruptcy case as a core proceeding.

Motley v. Southeast Neighborhood House (In re Southeast Neighborhood House) · filed 1988-09-19

The Court determines that this matter is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. Section 157 because it relates to a claim against the estate arising during the administration of the case.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (B) covers objections to claimed property exemptions as core proceedings.

In Re Peters · filed 1988-09-20(b)(2)(A) and (B)

This matter is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (B).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats this bankruptcy proceeding as core.

DuVoisin v. Kirkland (In re Southern Industrial Banking Corp.) · filed 1988-09-20(b)(2)(A)

This is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. Section 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (N) treats a proceeding involving the sale of estate assets as a core proceeding.

In Re DeNicola · filed 1988-09-21(b)(2)(A) and (N)

This matter, involving a sale of estate assets, is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) & (N).

Section 157(b)(2) identifies categories of core bankruptcy proceedings.

Matter of Rose · filed 1988-09-22(b)(2)

This proceeding, which arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) in a case referred to this court by the standing Order of Reference entered in this district on July 30, 1984, is determined to be a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B, C, K, M, O).

Section 157(b)(2)(H) treats an action to avoid an allegedly fraudulent leveraged-buyout transfer as a core proceeding.

Ohio Corrugating Co. v. DPAC, Inc. · filed 1988-09-26(b)(2)(H)

This is a core proceeding as set forth in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(b)(2)(H).

Section 157 treats dischargeability actions as core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Shelton v. Shelton (In Re Shelton) · filed 1988-09-26(b)(2)(I)

This dischargeability action is a core proceeding which the Court may hear and determine. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), and (2)(I).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers a dispute over who will administer a bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

In Re Frederick Petroleum Corp. · filed 1988-09-27(b)(2)(A)

This matter, involving the identity of the person to administer this estate, is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2) treats a dispute over an alleged unauthorized post-petition transfer of estate property as a core proceeding.

In Re Kendavis Industries International, Inc. · filed 1988-09-28(b)(2)

Second, because the transfer is alleged to be an unauthorized post-petition transfer of property of the estate, the matter would be core under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (E), (H) and (O) (Supp. IV 1987).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats an objection to the allowance of a claim as a core proceeding in which a bankruptcy judge may enter a final order.

In Re Bristol · filed 1988-09-28(b)(2)(B)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) in which this bankruptcy judge may enter a final order.

Section 157(b)(2) treats an objection to a secured claim involving lien validity as a core proceeding.

In Re Moussa · filed 1988-09-29(b)(2)(A), (B), (K)

This is a core matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (B) and (K).

Section 157(b)(2)(H) treats a fraudulent transfer proceeding as a core proceeding that the bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Cruse v. Clark (In re Clark) · filed 1988-09-29(b)(2)(H)

This is a “core proceeding” ... 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H), which the Court may hear and determine.

Section 157(b) treats motions concerning the automatic stay, discharge injunction, dischargeability, and the deadline to object to dischargeability as core proceedings.

Walker v. Wilde (In Re Walker) · filed 1988-09-30(b)

The matters before the court are determined to be “core” as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2) covers this Chapter 11 plan confirmation proceeding as a core proceeding.

In Re Placid Oil Co. · filed 1988-09-30(b)(2)

A. This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (B), (C), (G), (L) and (0).

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats proceedings to determine the dischargeability of debts as core proceedings.

Perino v. Cohen (In Re Cohen) · filed 1988-09-30(b)(2)(I)

This is a core proceeding as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) makes an objection to a claim a core proceeding in which a bankruptcy judge may enter a final order.

In Re Ousley · filed 1988-09-30(b)(2)(B)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) in which this bankruptcy judge may enter a final order.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (G) classify a motion to reinstate the automatic stay as a core proceeding.

Goldome Realty Credit Corp. v. Walls (In Re Walls) · filed 1988-10-06(b)(2)(A), (G)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (G).

Section 157 treats confirmation of a proposed Chapter 13 plan as a core proceeding in which a bankruptcy judge may enter a final order.

In Re McClaskie · filed 1988-10-07(b)(2)(L)

This matter, involving confirmation of a proposed Chapter 13 plan, is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L) in which this bankruptcy judge may enter a final order.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) treats a dispute over a trustee’s claim to homestead proceeds as a core proceeding that the bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Rimmel v. Huth (In Re Huth) · filed 1988-10-07(b)(2)(O)

This is a “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(O), which the Court may hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) and (O) covers this complaint as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Sapp v. Wilson (In Re Sapp) · filed 1988-10-07(b)(2)(G), (O)

This matter is a core proceeding over which this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G) and (O), 28 U.S. C. § 1334 and Rule 29 of the Local Rules of Court for the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Section 157(b)(2) does not treat a contested state law action to collect an account receivable as a core proceeding merely because it is characterized as a turnover action.

Flintrol, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (In Re Flintrol, Inc.) · filed 1988-10-13(b)(2)

The pending removed action, when stripped of its characterization as a turnover action, is nothing more than a state law cause of action for an alleged breach of contract to recover a money judgment against the Defendant. ... Hence, the bankruptcy court cannot enter a final order in the action.

Section 157(b)(2)(F) treats preference proceedings as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Duvoisin v. Anderson (In Re Southern Industrial Banking Corp.) · filed 1988-10-14(b)(2)(F)

This is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F).

A debtor’s complaint to recover a set-off and seek contempt damages for alleged violations of the automatic stay and discharge injunction is a core matter under § 157.

Soiett v. United States of America Veterans' Administration · filed 1988-10-14

This matter is before the court on a complaint by the chapter 7 debtor seeking to recover a set-off and damages for contempt against the United States Veteran’s Administration (“the V.A.”) for violating the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)[7] and § 524(a)(2). The issue is a core matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats objections to claims as core proceedings in which the bankruptcy court may enter final judgment.

In Re Circle J Dairy, Inc. · filed 1988-10-18(b)(2)(B)

The proceeding before the Court is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B). The Court has jurisdiction to enter a final judgment in the case.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (B) classifies proceedings concerning estate administration and allowance of exemptions from estate property as core proceedings.

Matter of Young · filed 1988-10-18(b)(2)(A), (B)

This proceeding, which arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) in a case referred to this court by the Order of Reference entered in this district on July 30, 1984, is determined to be a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) — matters concerning the administration of the estate, and (B)— allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate or exemptions from property of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats an objection to a creditor’s claim as a core bankruptcy matter.

In Re Danrik, Ltd. · filed 1988-10-19(b)(2)(B)

This is a core matter under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(F) makes a preference recovery action a core proceeding that a bankruptcy judge may hear and determine.

Jerry-Sue Fashions, Inc. v. I.T. Associates, Inc. (In Re Jerry-Sue Fashions, Inc.) · filed 1988-10-20(b)(2)(F)

This is a core proceeding in which the Court is authorized to hear and determine all matters relating to this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F).

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to classify a trustee’s adversary action seeking fidelity bond coverage as a core proceeding.

Rafoth v. National Union Fire Insurance (In Re Baker & Getty Financial Services, Inc.) · filed 1988-10-20

The Court finds this is a core proceeding pursuant to .28 U.S.C. Sec. 157 for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion and Order entered June 30, 1988.