Bryson Properties, XVIII v. Travelers Insurance Co.
BRYSON PROPERTIES, XVIII v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY
Bryson Props., XVIII v. Travelers Ins. Co., 506 U.S. 866 (1992)
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Denied.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 12 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that separate classification was “clearly for the purpose of manipulating voting and it may not stand”)
-
(recognizing that this prohibition, also known as the “absolute priority rule,” is codified in 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii))
-
(noting that “where all unsecured claims receive the same treatment in terms of the Plan distribution, separate classification on the basis of natural and unnatural recourse claims is, at a minimum, highly suspect”)
-
(noting that in the debt- or’s plan, which the court rejected as violating the absolute priority rule, “the equity-holders have given themselves not only the exclusive right to contribute, but the right to return of their new capital prior to Travelers’ recovery of its unsecured claim.”)
-
(applying Miles to personal injury cases under the Jones Act and noting “[a]lmost every court that has decided this question has held, as we do today, that Miles precludes recovery for loss of society”)
-
(“Where legal claims are sufficiently different as to justify a difference in treatment under a reorganization plan, reasonable differences in treatment are permissible.”)
-
(right to make § 1111(b) election requires separate classification of deficien cy when debtor is a single-asset partnership)
-
(“Jones Act limits a seaman’s recovery for injury to pecuniary losses and precludes recovery for nonpecuniary losses”)
Cited by 114 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Courts of Appeals26
- Federal District Courts39
- Bankruptcy Courts37
- State Highest Courts2
- State Appellate Courts10
Relies on it most ⓘ
- Bonner Mall Partnership, Debtor. Bonner Mall Partnership v. U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co.
- Strelecki v. Oklahoma Tax Commission
- 266 Washington Associates v. Citibank, N.A. (In re Washington Associates)
- McCullough v. Horne (In re McCullough)
- United States Department of Education v. Blair (In re Blair)
- Clancy v. Mobil Oil Corp.
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.