Donal Dennis Sullivan

How Judge Sullivan rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Sullivan no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

Court
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon
Position
bankruptcy
Status
Deceased
Served
1986–2009
Commissioned
1986-09
Education
Loyola University (attended); Illinois Institute of Technology (attended); DePaul University Law School (attended)
Signed orders read
28

How Judge Sullivan decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Priority treatment was tied to the statutory scheme rather than broad appeals to fairness or public policy.

“Designation of priorities is the province of Congress, and courts are not free to fashion their own super- or sub-priorities.”

Procedural preferences

When a complaint mixed estate-owned claims with claims belonging to creditors, the court required a narrowed amended pleading rather than allowing the theories to proceed together.

“The complaint should be dismissed but the trustee should be allowed 15 days within which to file an amended complaint asserting corporate claims.”

Cautions

Timely notice of the bankruptcy left the creditor responsible for investigating and filing its nondischargeability complaint before the deadline.

“this adversary proceeding is untimely and must be dismissed.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

In re Klee
· 1997-10-02
Summary judgment (United States) Denied

“ORDERED that the United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment is denied”

Summary judgment (Debtors) Granted

“ORDERED that the Debtors’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment is granted”

Objection to claim (Debtors) Granted

“ORDERED that the Debtors’ objection to the claim of the Internal Revenue Service is sustained and the claim is disallowed.”

Adkins v. Oregon Department of Workers Compensation (In re Adkins)
· 1988-11-23
Summary judgment (State of Oregon) Granted

“The motion of the State of Oregon for summary judgment should be granted and the complaint dismissed.”

Gross v. United States Department of Agriculture (In re Iverson)
· 1989-10-23
Motions to dismiss (United States Department of Agriculture) Denied

“The motion to dismiss filed by the Government should be denied.”

Workmans Forest Products, Inc. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. (In re Workmans Forest Products, Inc.)
· 1988-01-22
Summary judgment (Louisiana-Pacific Corp.) Denied

“For the foregoing reason, defendant’s motion for summary judgment should be denied.”

Caffal Bros. Forest Products, Inc. v. Braun (In re Braun)
· 1986-08-07
Motions to dismiss (John Braun) Granted

“The motion to dismiss, which will be considered a motion for summary judgment to the extent there are factual matters, should be granted.”

In re National Automatic Sprinkler Co. of Oregon, Inc.
· 1986-06-11
Objection to claim (Chapter 7 trustee) Granted

“The trustee’s objection is sustained.”

Robert K. Morrow, Inc. v. Kelson (In re Morgan-Staley Lumber Co.)
· 1986-11-17
Motions to dismiss (Defendants) Granted

“The complaint should be dismissed but the trustee should be allowed 15 days within which to file an amended complaint asserting corporate claims.”

Motion for more definite statement (Defendants) Granted

“ORDER ALLOWING MOTION TO DISMISS AND TO MAKE MORE DEFINITE AND CERTAIN”

John B. Franzwa, Inc. v. Community Gresham Broadcasting Corp. (In re Columbia River Broadcasting, Inc.)
· 1989-09-06
Summary judgment (Chapter 7 trustee) Granted

“Summary judgment should be granted to the trustee.”

In re Dant & Russell, Inc.
· 1985-12-03
Objection to administrative priority (Debtor in possession) Granted

“Burlington’s claim should be denied administrative priority”

Navarra v. Maggi (In re Maggi)
· 1985-11-14
Summary judgment (Plaintiffs) Granted

“summary judgment should be entered in favor of plaintiffs and against the defendant on all issues under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).”

United States v. Van Vactor (In re Crouch)
· 1985-06-07

The court allocated crop proceeds among the secured lender and those who contributed necessary preservation costs, without deciding a discrete motion.

In re Winters
· 1986-10-27
Motion for relief from stay (Wood Products Credit Union) Denied

“Relief should be denied to the credit union.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The median reflects case-level filing and termination dates only; the sampled matters contained no archived motion entries.

A historical record

Judge Sullivan no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.