In Re Pacor, Inc. v. John Higgins, Jr. And Louise Higgins
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
The Sixth Circuit, in Kelly v. Nodine, found Pacor's analysis unpersuasive and rejected any requirement that the estate be definitely liable; that opinion was found by a check of citations outside the flagged set. The Third Circuit later confined post-confirmation “related to” jurisdiction to matters with a close nexus to the plan or proceeding, and a District of Colorado court likewise declined to apply the Pacor test literally after confirmation. An E.D. Pennsylvania bankruptcy court criticized as probably overbroad Pacor's absolute statement that a nonparty could not be bound by collateral estoppel. The other reviewed opinions applied Pacor's “conceivable effect” test or its own no-automatic-liability boundary, or repeated Things Remembered history without independently treating Pacor.
1,603 later cases cite In Re Pacor, Inc. v. John Higgins, Jr. And Louise Higgins; 136 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading; 116 of them have been read, and the text of 20 citing opinions could not be retrieved, so those remain unread. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on In Re Pacor, Inc. v. John Higgins, Jr. And Louise Higgins?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Overruled in part
-
The Supreme Court overruled Pacor's holding that bankruptcy remand orders based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction are reviewable on appeal.
Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
We reach the same conclusion regardless of whether removal was effected pursuant to § 1441(a) or § 1452(a). Section 1447(d) applies “not only to remand orders made in suits removed under [the general removal statute], but to orders of remand made in cases removed under any other statutes, as well.” ... If an order remands a bankruptcy case to state court because of a timely raised defect in removal procedure or lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, then a court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review that order under § 1447(d), regardless of whether the case was removed under § 1441(a) or § 1452(a).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Limited
-
The Third Circuit confined Pacor's conceivable-effect test after confirmation, requiring a close nexus to an integral aspect of the bankruptcy plan or proceeding.
Binder ex rel. Resorts International, Inc. v. Price Waterhouse & Co. (In re Resorts International, Inc.) · Third Circuit · filed
At the ... post-confirmation stage, the claim must ... affect an integral aspect of the bankruptcy ... process— there must be a close nexus to ... the bankruptcy plan or proceeding.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to apply Pacor literally after plan confirmation and instead used close-nexus review.
Centrix Financial Liquidating Trust v. Sutton · U.S. District Court, D. Colo. · filed
The Pacor test, however, is problematic in the post-confirmation context. If I applied the test literally in this case, it would strip the Court of “related to” jurisdiction.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Criticized
-
The bankruptcy court criticized as probably overbroad Pacor's absolute statement that a nonparty could not be bound by collateral estoppel, noting recognized exceptions to the identity-of-parties requirement.
Kevin O'Halloran v. Prudential Savings Bank (In re Island View Crossing II, L.P.) · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pa. · filed
This passage in Pacor states the limitation on the application of collateral estoppel in absolute terms and is probably overbroad. In the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel, there are some exceptions to the "identity of parties" requirement referred to by the Pacor court.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Declined to follow
-
The Fifth Circuit declined to follow Pacor's reasoning that bankruptcy remand orders based on lack of jurisdiction remain appealable.
Norman Sykes v. Texas Air Corporation · Fifth Circuit · filed
Texas Air asks us to adopt Pacor’s reasoning and to hear this appeal. ... We must dismiss the appeal. The reasoning of Pacor does not persuade us; even if it did we see no way around Ray-bum and Compton.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Sixth Circuit found Pacor's analysis unpersuasive and held that related-to jurisdiction does not require a finding that the estate would be definitely liable, the condition Pacor's no-automatic-liability reasoning had been read to impose.
Kelly v. Nodine · Sixth Circuit · filed
However, we do not find the analysis in Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984 (3d Cir.1984) to be compelling in this case. ... We also agree with Judge Graves that the statute does not require a finding of definite liability of the estate as a condition precedent to holding an action related to a bankruptcy proceeding.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads In Re Pacor, Inc. v. John Higgins, Jr. And Louise Higgins and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace