133:
437:. In his opinion, Justice Thomas reviewed the language of the different statutory provisions, concluding that while there was some overlap between the provisions of Section 158 and Sections 1291 and 1292, each section also covers some cases that the other would not. Thomas observed that "edundancies across statutes are not unusual events in drafting, and so long as there is no "positive repugnancy" between two laws ... a court must give effect to both."
386:
deals specifically with bankruptcy cases.) Ordinarily, in the federal system, only final judgments may be appealed from the
District Court to the Court of Appeals, under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Section 1292 creates limited exceptions to this rule, including appeals from orders granting or denying injunctions, or cases in which the District Court and the Court of Appeals grant special permission to appeal.
24:
468:
Justice
Stevens began his opinion by stating that "henever there is some uncertainty about the meaning of a statute, it is prudent to examine its legislative history." Here, the legislative history of Section 158(d) contained no indication that this statute was intended to supersede Sections 1291 or
440:
Thomas asserted that the meaning of the statutes was clear from their wording. Therefore, he asserted, there was no need for the Court to examine the legislative history of
Section 158. The opinion concluded that "here is no reason to infer from either § 1292 or § 158(d) that Congress meant to limit
472:
Justice O'Connor's one-paragraph opinion observed that the Court's decision did create some redundancy between the different provisions of title 28. However, she found it "far more likely that
Congress inadvertently created a redundancy than that Congress intended to withdraw appellate jurisdiction
385:
A separate provision of title 28, 28 U.S.C. § 1292, addresses appeals from the
District Court to the Court of Appeals where a District Court's decision is interlocutory, that is, is not the final decision in the case. (Section 1292 deals with all federal civil cases, as opposed to section 158 which
345:
held that an interlocutory order of a district court, sitting as an appellate court in a bankruptcy case, is in turn reviewable by the court of appeals when authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. Although the
Justices were unanimous in deciding the specific
441:
appellate review of interlocutory orders in bankruptcy proceedings. So long as a party to a proceeding or case in bankruptcy meets the conditions imposed by § 1292, a court of appeals may rely on that statute as a basis for jurisdiction."
473:
over interlocutory bankruptcy appeals by the roundabout method of reconferring jurisdiction over appeals from final bankruptcy orders," and joined in voting to reverse the Second
Circuit's judgment only for this reason.
404:
to resolve a dispute as to whether a
District Court's interlocutory order on a bankruptcy appeal was appealable to the Court of Appeals in the circumstances authorized under section 1292. The case was argued by
604:
393:. The Bankruptcy Court ruled in favor of a jury trial, and on appeal, the District Court affirmed. The defendant, Connecticut National Bank, then sought to appeal this interlocutory ruling to the
594:
528:
394:
174:
41:
457:
authored brief opinions "concurring in the judgment," meaning that they agreed with the outcome of the case but not with the reasoning of the majority. Justices
192:) ¶ 78,009; 26 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 175; 22 Bankr. Ct. Dec. 1130; 92 Cal. Daily Op. Service 1971; 92 Daily Journal DAR 3080; 6 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 57
599:
589:
382:
for the circuit. However, Section 158(d) contained no provision for appeals from interlocutory, or non-final, District Court decisions in such cases.
88:
584:
60:
67:
375:
350:
issue concerning bankruptcy appeals that the case presented, they disagreed on the extent to which it was appropriate to refer to the
342:
324:
316:
137:
74:
107:
409:, now a federal judge in Connecticut, for the petitioner, and by bankruptcy trustee Thomas M. Germain for himself as respondent.
56:
469:
1292. Stevens stated that he agreed with the Court's decision for this reason, in addition to the majority's textual analysis.
379:
367:
45:
371:
156:
Connecticut
National Bank, Petitioner v. Thomas M. Germain, Trustee for the Estate of O'Sullivan's Fuel Oil Co., Inc.
81:
34:
347:
557:
370:
for the appropriate judicial district. Appeals from
Bankruptcy Court decisions are ordinarily taken to the
454:
389:
In a bankruptcy case pending in Connecticut, a dispute arose as to whether the parties were entitled to a
249:
532:
166:
351:
539:
450:
422:
378:, appeals from final judgments of the district courts in bankruptcy cases may be taken to the
241:
221:
430:
418:
273:
261:
548:
495:
462:
458:
426:
253:
237:
578:
406:
189:
320:
434:
265:
328:
169:
229:
23:
401:
390:
363:
185:
181:
566:
397:, but that court held it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.
366:
cases and many lawsuits involving a bankrupt party are heard by the
132:
17:
421:
wrote the Court's opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice
605:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
496:"Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249 (1992)"
395:
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
290:
Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter
310:
302:
294:
286:
281:
210:
202:
197:
161:
151:
144:
125:
48:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
595:United States statutory interpretation case law
341:, 503 U.S. 249 (1992), was a case in which the
8:
374:for that district. Under Section 158(d) of
122:
108:Learn how and when to remove this message
188:1531; 60 U.S.L.W. 4222; Bankr. L. Rep. (
482:
354:of the statute in resolving the case.
57:"Connecticut National Bank v. Germain"
120:1992 United States Supreme Court case
7:
525:Connecticut National Bank v. Germain
490:
488:
486:
338:Connecticut National Bank v. Germain
126:Connecticut National Bank v. Germain
46:adding citations to reliable sources
445:Opinions concurring in the judgment
306:O'Connor, joined by White, Blackmun
376:title 28 of the United States Code
343:Supreme Court of the United States
138:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
600:United States Supreme Court cases
590:United States bankruptcy case law
535:249 (1992) is available from:
131:
22:
465:joined O'Connor's concurrence.
33:needs additional citations for
585:1992 in United States case law
368:United States Bankruptcy Court
1:
372:United States District Court
206:926 F.2d 191 (2d Cir. 1991)
621:
567:Oyez (oral argument audio)
400:The Supreme Court granted
315:
215:
130:
348:statutory interpretation
145:Argued January 21, 1992
362:In the United States,
180:112 S. Ct. 1146; 117
147:Decided March 9, 1992
413:Opinion of the Court
42:improve this article
558:Library of Congress
455:Sandra Day O'Connor
352:legislative history
250:Sandra Day O'Connor
226:Associate Justices
451:John Paul Stevens
423:William Rehnquist
334:
333:
222:William Rehnquist
118:
117:
110:
92:
612:
571:
565:
562:
556:
553:
547:
544:
538:
511:
510:
508:
506:
492:
380:Court of Appeals
211:Court membership
135:
134:
123:
113:
106:
102:
99:
93:
91:
50:
26:
18:
620:
619:
615:
614:
613:
611:
610:
609:
575:
574:
569:
563:
560:
554:
551:
545:
542:
536:
520:
515:
514:
504:
502:
494:
493:
484:
479:
447:
431:Anthony Kennedy
419:Clarence Thomas
415:
360:
274:Clarence Thomas
264:
262:Anthony Kennedy
252:
242:John P. Stevens
240:
193:
146:
140:
121:
114:
103:
97:
94:
51:
49:
39:
27:
12:
11:
5:
618:
616:
608:
607:
602:
597:
592:
587:
577:
576:
573:
572:
540:Google Scholar
519:
518:External links
516:
513:
512:
481:
480:
478:
475:
463:Harry Blackmun
459:Byron R. White
449:Two Justices,
446:
443:
427:Antonin Scalia
414:
411:
359:
356:
332:
331:
325:28 U.S.C.
317:28 U.S.C.
313:
312:
308:
307:
304:
300:
299:
296:
292:
291:
288:
284:
283:
279:
278:
277:
276:
254:Antonin Scalia
238:Harry Blackmun
227:
224:
219:
213:
212:
208:
207:
204:
200:
199:
195:
194:
179:
163:
159:
158:
153:
152:Full case name
149:
148:
142:
141:
136:
128:
127:
119:
116:
115:
30:
28:
21:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
617:
606:
603:
601:
598:
596:
593:
591:
588:
586:
583:
582:
580:
568:
559:
550:
541:
534:
530:
526:
522:
521:
517:
501:
497:
491:
489:
487:
483:
476:
474:
470:
466:
464:
460:
456:
452:
444:
442:
438:
436:
432:
428:
425:and Justices
424:
420:
412:
410:
408:
407:Janet C. Hall
403:
398:
396:
392:
387:
383:
381:
377:
373:
369:
365:
357:
355:
353:
349:
344:
340:
339:
330:
326:
322:
321:§ 158(d)
318:
314:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
282:Case opinions
280:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
228:
225:
223:
220:
218:Chief Justice
217:
216:
214:
209:
205:
201:
196:
191:
187:
183:
177:
176:
171:
168:
164:
160:
157:
154:
150:
143:
139:
129:
124:
112:
109:
101:
90:
87:
83:
80:
76:
73:
69:
66:
62:
59: –
58:
54:
53:Find sources:
47:
43:
37:
36:
31:This article
29:
25:
20:
19:
16:
524:
503:. Retrieved
499:
471:
467:
448:
439:
435:David Souter
416:
399:
388:
384:
361:
337:
336:
335:
311:Laws applied
269:
266:David Souter
257:
245:
233:
198:Case history
173:
155:
104:
95:
85:
78:
71:
64:
52:
40:Please help
35:verification
32:
15:
505:October 15,
329:§ 1292
303:Concurrence
295:Concurrence
230:Byron White
579:Categories
500:Justia Law
477:References
402:certiorari
391:jury trial
364:bankruptcy
358:Background
186:U.S. LEXIS
184:391; 1992
68:newspapers
182:L. Ed. 2d
162:Citations
98:July 2013
523:Text of
417:Justice
287:Majority
298:Stevens
82:scholar
570:
564:
561:
555:
552:
549:Justia
546:
543:
537:
433:, and
327:
319:
272:
270:·
268:
260:
258:·
256:
248:
246:·
244:
236:
234:·
232:
84:
77:
70:
63:
55:
531:
203:Prior
89:JSTOR
75:books
533:U.S.
507:2018
461:and
453:and
175:more
167:U.S.
165:503
61:news
529:503
190:CCH
170:249
44:by
581::
527:,
498:.
485:^
429:,
323:,
509:.
178:)
172:(
111:)
105:(
100:)
96:(
86:·
79:·
72:·
65:·
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
