Baida v. Wikle

Ninth Circuit

Baida v. Wikle

655 F.2d 967

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 21, 1981

DocketNo. 80-5089

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 655 F.2d 967 (Baida v. Wikle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baida v. Wikle, 655 F.2d 967 (9th Cir. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In the absence of any facts which would permit us to significantly and properly distinguish Heinecke Instruments Company v. Republic Corporation, 543 F.2d 700 (9th Cir. 1976), In re Staff Mortgage, etc.; Huffman v. Wikle, 550 F.2d 1228 (9th Cir. 1977), In re Bruce Farley Corporation; Starr v. Bruce Farley Corporation, 612 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1980), and In re Staff Mortgage, etc.; Greiner v. Wilke, 625 F.2d 281 (9th Cir. 1980) (and there are none), the judicial panels of this court are bound by the principles announced and followed in those decisions. This is true whether we apply “law of the case,” “stare decisis,” or “collateral estop-pel” principles. (See Greiner v. Wilke, supra, at 282-283, applying stare decisis principles.)

Contrary to appellants’ assertion, the issue of “general intangibles” as applied to the instruments involved here and in the cases cited above, has been presented to and decided by this court adversely to appellants’ claims. Greiner v. Wilke, supra, at 284, footnotes 1, 2, and 3.

The extensive and fruitless litigation and relitigation of these same issues in this bankruptcy proceeding must come to a halt.

[968]*968The judgments below are

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

In the absence of any facts which would permit us to significantly and properly distinguish Heinecke Instruments Company v. Republic Corporation, 543 F.2d 700 (9th Cir. 1976), In re Staff Mortgage, etc.; Huffman v. Wikle, 550 F.2d 1228 (9th Cir. 1977), In re Bruce Farley Corporation; Starr v. Bruce Farley Corporation, 612 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1980), and In re Staff Mortgage, etc.; Greiner v. Wilke, 625 F.2d 281 (9th Cir. 1980) (and there are none), the judicial panels of this court are bound by the principles announced and followed in those decisions. This is true whether we apply “law of the case,” “stare decisis,” or “collateral estop-pel” principles. (See Greiner v. Wilke, supra, at 282-283, applying stare decisis principles.)

Contrary to appellants’ assertion, the issue of “general intangibles” as applied to the instruments involved here and in the cases cited above, has been presented to and decided by this court adversely to appellants’ claims. Greiner v. Wilke, supra, at 284, footnotes 1, 2, and 3.

The extensive and fruitless litigation and relitigation of these same issues in this bankruptcy proceeding must come to a halt.

[968]*968The judgments below are

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

655 F.2d 967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baida-v-wikle-ca9-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack