United States Trustee, William T. Neary v. Keravision, Inc., Debtor-Appellee

Ninth Circuit

United States Trustee, William T. Neary v. Keravision, Inc., Debtor-Appellee

421 F.3d 1153, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 19262, 2005 WL 2140242

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 7, 2005

Docket03-16067

StatusPublished

This text of 421 F.3d 1153 (United States Trustee, William T. Neary v. Keravision, Inc., Debtor-Appellee) 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

United States Trustee, William T. Neary v. Keravision, Inc., Debtor-Appellee, 421 F.3d 1153, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 19262, 2005 WL 2140242 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

*1154 JUDGMENT ORDER

ORDER

We affirm the judgment entered by the district court for the reasons stated in its opinion approving the appointment of the law firm. See In re Keravision, Inc., 273 B.R. 614 (N.D.Cal.2002). 1 The trustee did not raise the rules of professional responsibility in challenging the law firm’s appointment before the district court. See id. at 618. Therefore, we decline to address that issue on appeal. See United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 923 (9th Cir.2004).

AFFIRMED.

1

. We have jurisdiction over this appeal because the order awarding attorneys’ fees is a final determination of the payment to be distributed to Latham from the estate. See Yermakov v. Fitzsimmons (In re Yermakov), 718 F.2d 1465, 1469 (9th Cir.1983).

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