Supreme Court rules in false arrest, bankruptcy cases
Law Firm News
Today's Legal News Bookmark This Website
Supreme Court rules in false arrest, bankruptcy cases
Legal News Update | 2007/02/21 09:11

The US Supreme Court handed down decisions in two cases Wednesday, including Wallace v. Kato, where the Court held that the two-year statute of limitations for a false arrest action under under 42 USC 1983 begins accruing at the time of arrest. Andre Wallace was arrested without probable cause in 1994, convicted, and released from prison in 2002 after an Illinois court reversed the conviction. He subsequently filed a civil rights lawsuit against the police officers involved, but his case was dismissed because he did not file the lawsuit within the two-year statute of limitations. Wallace argued that two-year period began accruing when he was released from prison, but the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that false arrest claims accrue at the time of arrest. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, holding "that the statute of limitations upon a §1983 claim seeking damages for a false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment, where the arrest is followed by criminal proceedings, begins to run at the time the claimant becomes detained pursuant to legal process." Read the Court's opinion per Justice Scalia, along with a concurrence from Justice Stevens and a dissent from Justice Breyer.

In Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, the Court ruled 5-4 that a debtor's right to convert a Chapter 7 bankruptcy to a case under Chapter 13 is not absolute. Marrama initially filed a bankruptcy petition under Chapter 7 but then attempted to convert his case to a Chapter 13 petition in order to preserve his interest in an $85,000 piece of property. Citizens Bank challenged the conversion, and the bankruptcy court refused to allow the conversion due to Marrama's bad faith. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court decision from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, concluding "that the courts in this case correctly held that Marrama forfeited his right to proceed under Chapter 13." The Court wrote:

Nothing in the text of either §706 or §1307(c) (or the legislative history of either provision) limits the authority of the court to take appropriate action in response to fraudulent conduct by the atypical litigant who has demonstrated that he is not entitled to the relief available to the typical debtor. On the contrary, the broad authority granted to bankruptcy judges to take any action that is necessary or appropriate "to prevent an abuse of process" described in §105(a) of the Code, is surely adequate to authorize an immediate denial of a motion to convert filed under §706 in lieu of a conversion order that merely postpones the allowance of equivalent relief and may provide a debtor with an opportunity to take action prejudicial to creditors.



[PREV] [1] ..[2028][2029][2030][2031][2032][2033][2034][2035][2036].. [2655] [NEXT]
All
Antitrust Issues
Legal News Update
Legal Business Articles
Class Action Law Suits
Corporate Governance Law
Court News Feed
Criminal Law Articles
Elder Law Issues
Entertainment Law
Family Law Issues
Health Care Law
Legal Rights
Immigration Law
Legal Insurance
Intellectual Property Law
Labor & Employment Law
Legal Center
Legal Professional Business
Legal Internet Marketing
Litigation Law
Medical Malpractice Issues
Mergers & Acquisitions Matters
People on the News
Political and Legal Trends
Political Insight
Legal Focuses
Real Estate Law
Security Trends
Tax Information
Tort Reform Guidelines
Venture Business Articles
World Business Today
Law Firm Highlights
Attorney Info
Environmental Issues
Careers in the Legal Sector
Civil Rights Updates
DUI Info
Military Law Practices
Patent Law Information
Legal Consumer Rights
International Legal News
Maritime Law
Legal Outlook & Information
Law School Articles
TikTok content creators sue ..
Abortion consumes US politic..
Trump faces prospect of addi..
Retrial of Harvey Weinstein ..
Starbucks appears likely to ..
Supreme Court will weigh ban..
Judge in Trump case orders m..
Court makes it easier to sue..
Top Europe rights court cond..
Elon Musk will be investigat..


   Lawyer & Law Firm Links
Chicago Work Accident Lawyer
Chicago Workplace Injury Attorneys
www.krol-law.com
Connecticut Special Education Lawyer
www.fortelawgroup.com
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
Indianapolis Personal Injury Law Firm
Indiana, IN Personal Injury Attorneys
www.williamspiatt.com
San Francisco Family Law Lawyer
San Jose Family Law Lawyer
www.onulawfirm.com
 
 
© www.timelegalnews.com. All rights reserved.

The content and articles provided on this website have been prepared by Time Legal News as an informational source and service to the legal internet community and is not to act or constitute as any type of legal advice or consultation with an actual licensed attorney or legal professional in any case or circumstance.Time Legal News blog posts and comments are available for educational purposes only and should not be used to determine or valuate a legal situation or matter. Affordable Law Firm Website Design