In Re: Robinson
This text of In Re: Robinson (In Re: Robinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________
No. 98-20741 Summary Calendar _______________
In the Matter of: ROY BERT ROBINSON,
Debtor.
RICHARD HENRY PARKER, JR.,
Appellant, VERSUS
DONALD M. LANCON, ROY BERT ROBINSON, and KATHLEEN ROBINSON,
Appellees.
******************************************
In the Matter of: RICHARD HENRY PARKER, JR.,
Debtor. RICHARD HENRY PARKER, JR.,
Appellees. _________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (H-95-CV-5714) _________________________ June 14, 1999
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Richard Parker appeals the district court's rejection of all
of his challenges to bankruptcy court orders. The first error
Parker allegesSSthe failure of the bankruptcy court to disqualify
an attorneySShe waived by failing to designate the issue in his
statement of issues submitted to the district court pursuant to
FED. R. BANKR. P. 8006. See Zimmermann v. Jenkins (In re GGM, P.C.),
165 F.3d 1026, 1031 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding “that, even if an
issue is argued in the bankruptcy court and ruled on by that court,
it is not preserved for appeal under Bankruptcy Rule 8006 unless
the appellant includes the issue in its statement of issues on
appeal.”).
Regarding the remaining issues, there is no reversible error,
and we affirm on the basis of the district court's thorough
opinion, which does a fine job of wading through the convoluted
morass of proceedings to resolve the fairly simple legal arguments.
It is time for this seemingly endless litigationSSover fifteen
years of related cases, involving several courts at both the state
and federal levelSSto be brought to conclusion. AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re: Robinson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-robinson-ca5-1999.