Cases

646 Argued and submitted September 5, 2019, general and supplemental judgments affirmed December 29, 2021 CREEKSIDE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., an Oregon nonprofit corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CREEKSIDE GOLF COURSE, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, dba Creekside Golf Club; and Creekside Golf Operations, LLC,

Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER. Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email corrections@akcourts.us. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA CREEKSIDE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; ) CREEKSIDE-ALYESKA, LLC; and ) Supreme Court No. S-17517 COMMUN

No. 461 July 3, 2024 569 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON CREEKSIDE VALLEY FARMS, LLC, and Paul H. Kuehene, Petitioners, v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Respondent. Oregon Department of Agriculture 190723; A177927 Argued October 25, 2023. Richard P. Brown argued the cause for

No. 461 July 3, 2024 569 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON CREEKSIDE VALLEY FARMS, LLC, and Paul H. KUEHENE, Petitioners, v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Respondent. Oregon Department of Agriculture 190723; A177927 Argued October 25, 2023. Richard P. Brown argued the cause for p

ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2013 FED App.0001P (6th Cir.) File Name: 13b0001p.06 BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT In re: CREEKSIDE SENIOR APARTMENTS, ) L.P., et al., ) ) No. 12-8023 Debtors. ) ______________________________________ ) App

OPINION ARTHUR I. HARRIS, Bankruptcy Judge. This appeal arises from a bankruptcy court order in which the bankruptcy court *45concluded that, for purposes of determining the value of the secured portion of the claims of Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank”) pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 506(a), a determination of the fair market value of various apartment complexes

*54OPINION ARTHUR I. HARRIS, Bankruptcy Judge. The debtors in five jointly administered Chapter 11 cases (“Debtors”) and their general partners (“General Partners”) (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Debtors’ cases pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b). For the reasons that follow, we affirm. I.ISSUES O

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 24, 2012 Session CREEKSIDE PARTNERS v. ALBERT NATHAN SCOTT ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 11737-I Claudia Bonnyman, Chancellor No. M2012-00623-COA-R3-CV - Filed January 10, 2013 This is an action to recover damages for breach of a commercial lease from an individual whom

ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2012 FED App. 0008P (6th Cir.) File Name: 2012b0008p.06 BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT In re: CREEKSIDE SENIOR APARTMENTS, ) LP, et al., ) ) No. 11-8072 Debtors. ) ______________________________________

Opinion filed April 28, 2022 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-20-00254-CV __________ CREEKSIDE RURAL INVESTMENTS, INC.; MANOR RANCHES, LTD.; AND JAY DICKENS, Appellants V. DAN HICKS AND PAM BROWNING, Appellees On Appeal from the 132nd Distr

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-24-00050-CV ___________________________ CREEKSIDE RANCH GROUP, LLC, Appellant V. JAMES BERTRAM BLAIR AND ROBERT BLAIR, AS INDEPENDENT CO- EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF MARY ADALINE LOVING BLAIR; LARRY HOLLIN

taxpayers’ properties for the 2020 tax year. Accordingly, the court affirms the district court order dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado 2 East 14th Avenue • Denver, Colorado 80203 2023 CO 26 Supreme Court Case No. 22SC798 C.A.R. 50 Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Case No. 21CA

JUSTICE BAKER delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Appellants Riverstone Residential Group, LLC (Riverstone), HSC Real Estate, Inc. (HSC), Creekside ICG Apartment Portfolio HI, LLC (Creekside), NW Apartment Portfolio II Wildflower, LLC (Wildflower), NW Apartment Portfolio II Shiloh Glen, LLC (Shiloh Glen), and 4

Thomas J. Tucker, United States Bankruptcy Judge *394I. Introduction These jointly-administered cases came before the Court for a hearing on February 6, 2019, on three motions, namely: (1) the joint motion by state court receiver NAI Farbman (the "Receiver") and secured creditor Southfield Metro Center Holdin

2021 WI 86 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2019AP2034 COMPLETE TITLE: Andrea Townsend, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ChartSwap, LLC, Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner. REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS Reporte

REVERSE and RENDER in part and AFFIRM in part; Opinion Filed April 26, 2022 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-10-01279-CV YNM CORPORATION, Appellant V. MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., BOCA RATON APARTMENTS, LLC, DIXIE WINDS, LLC, SUN WINDS, LLC, AND WENDELL A. JACOBSO

JERRY C. OLDSHUE, JR., U.S. BANKRUPTCY JUDGE *66This matter came before the Court for a hearing on June 28, 2019, on Creditor BGVM Finance III, LLC's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Relief from Stay (collectively "the Motions") (Docs. 35, 36) and Debtor's Response in Opposition thereto. (Docs. 45, 46). Appearances were as noted on the record.

JOHN S. HODGE, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE Before the Court is a motion filed by Richland State Bank (the "Bank ") seeking the dismissal of this Chapter 11 case or, in the alternative, the lifting of the automatic stay and the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee. (Doc. 22). Also before the Court is a motion filed by the United States Trustee ("UST ") seeking the dismissal of thi

Opinion filed November 30, 2023 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-22-00210-CV __________ SPOON RANCH FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND DDMP, LLC, Appellants V. ATMOS ENERGY CORPORATION, Appellee On Appeal from the 1st Multicounty C

CHIEF JUSTICE RICE delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶ 1 This case requires us to determine whether contractual privity is necessary for a home buyer to assert a claim for breach of the implied warranty of suitability against a developer. We hold that, because breach of the implied warranty of suitability is a contract claim, privity of contract is