Raymond A. Schmoll v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Raytech Corporation, Raymond A. Schmoll v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Raytech Corporation

977 F.2d 499, 92 Daily Journal DAR 14489, 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8728, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 27466
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedOctober 26, 1992
Docket89-35101
StatusPublished

This text of 977 F.2d 499 (Raymond A. Schmoll v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Raytech Corporation, Raymond A. Schmoll v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Raytech Corporation) 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
Raymond A. Schmoll v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Raytech Corporation, Raymond A. Schmoll v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Raytech Corporation, 977 F.2d 499, 92 Daily Journal DAR 14489, 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8728, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 27466 (9th Cir. 1992).

Opinion

977 F.2d 499

Raymond A. SCHMOLL, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ACANDS, INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation, et al., Defendants,
and
Raytech Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
Raymond A. SCHMOLL, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ACANDS, INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation, et al., Defendants,
and
Raytech Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 89-35101, 89-35168.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Sept. 15, 1992.
Decided Oct. 26, 1992.

William N. Reed, H. Mitchell Cowan, J. Randall Patterson, Watkins Ludlam & Stennis, Jackson, Miss., for defendant-appellant.

Henry Kantor, Jeffrey S. Mutnick, Pozzi, Wilson, Atchison, O'Leary & Conboy, Portland, Or., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon; Owen M. Panner, Chief Judge.

Before: BEEZER, NOONAN, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Under Oregon law, creditors have priority over shareholders in all of the future earnings of an insolvent corporation. We have reviewed the record in No. 89-35168 and we affirm the district court's judgment on the grounds stated in its opinion. Schmoll v. ACandS, Inc., 703 F.Supp. 868 (D.Or.1988).

We dismiss Raytech's appeal of an interlocutory order in No. 89-35101.

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

Related

Schmoll v. Acands, Inc.
703 F. Supp. 868 (D. Oregon, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
977 F.2d 499, 92 Daily Journal DAR 14489, 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8728, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 27466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raymond-a-schmoll-v-acands-inc-a-pennsylvania-corporation-and-raytech-ca9-1992.