Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

96 F. Supp. 535

In re Regency, Inc.

New Jersey District Court

Decided March 28, 1951

New Jersey District Court · decided 1951-03-28

Relies on Pepper v. Litton · Heiser v. Woodruff

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1951-03-28

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently April 1994

3 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

7019511960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

FAKE, District Judge.

¶1Upon consideration of the evidence adduced before the referee in the above-entitled matter, the briefs submitted by counsel, and the reasoning set forth in the referee’s report, I am firmly convinced that the referee was justified in entering the order dated May 9, 1950, which provides as follows : “ it is ordered that the said claim of Jean G. L. Cassel van Doom and the said claim of Marij V. Cassel van Doom be and the same are hereby subordinated to the payment in full of all other creditors whose claims are or may be allowed in the above estate, and that said claims, as so subordinated, are hereby allowed.”

¶2I do not deem it necessary to enter an extended opinion here because the cases of Pepper v. Litton, 308 U.S. 295, 60 S.Ct. 238, 84 L.Ed. 281, and Heiser v. Woodruff, 327 U.S. 726, 66 S.Ct. 853, 90 L.Ed. 970, when coupled with the memorandum of the referee are sufficient. Anything more would tend to unnecessarily encumber the record.

¶3An order will be entered affirming the referee.

/96/fsupp/535 · .json · Public domain