You are here
Opinions
The District of Arizona offers a database of opinions for the years 2012 to current, listed by year and judge.
Judicial opinions from the District of Arizona, as well as other participating courts from throughout the nation, can also be accessed through the U.S. Government Publishing Office's United States Courts Opinions web page. To view judicial opinions on the GPO’s website, click here.
| Date | Description |
Judge |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/28/12 |
Timothy Ray Wright (2:09-bk-32244-SSC) 12/28/12 Memorandum Decision Re: Debtor's Objection to Midfirst Bank's Proof of Claim |
Judge Sarah S. Curley (retired) | |
| 01/23/06 |
Ewoldt V. Leggitt (2:05-ap-00241-SSC) 01/23/06 Memorandum Decision |
Judge Sarah S. Curley (retired) | |
| 11/22/05 |
Gti Capital Holdings Llc (2:03-bk-07923-SSC) 11/22/05 Memorandum Decision |
Judge Sarah S. Curley (retired) | |
| 02/22/08 |
Renaissance Aircraft, Llc V. Paul Combs (2:05-ap-00570-SSC) 02/22/08 Memorandum Decision |
Judge Sarah S. Curley (retired) | |
| 02/22/08 |
Renaissance Aircraft, Llc V. Paul Combs (2:05-ap-00570-SSC) 02/22/08 Amended and Restated Order Dismissing Remaining Counts of Complaint (Counts 1-6 and 8) with Prejudice and Order Incorporating Memorandum Decision of February 22, 2008 |
Judge Sarah S. Curley (retired) | |
| 10/17/12 |
Quarterman V. Quarterman Et Al (2:11-ap-01154-SSC) 10/17/12 Memorandum Decision |
Judge Sarah S. Curley (retired) | |
| 03/30/06 |
Ronald T Osborne And Shelly L Osborne (2:05-bk-07212-SSC) 03/30/06 Memorandum Decision |
Judge Sarah S. Curley (retired) | |
| 08/15/05 |
Greenwood V. Buban Et Al (2:04-ap-01068-SSC) 08/15/05 Memorandum Decision |
Judge Sarah S. Curley (retired) | |
| 09/28/07 |
Damian Roderick White (2:05-bk-21488-SSC) 09/28/07 Order Incorporating Memorandum Decision of September 28, 2007 |
Judge Sarah S. Curley (retired) | |
| 12/28/12 |
Timothy Ray Wright (2:09-bk-32244-SSC) 12/28/12 Holding: The parties seek a determination on the existence of a deficiency claim. It is the Court’s belief that resolution of “all claims” in the settlement of the Adversary Proceeding encompassed said deficiency claim. This settlement between the Debtor and MidFirst resulted in a final agreed order that required the dismissal of the Adversary Proceeding with prejudice. MidFirst’s attempt to resurrect this claim, without a specific reservation in the final order dismissing the Adversary Proceeding, months after the settlement, and more than a year after the sale of the Properties, is without a legal basis. |
Judge Sarah S. Curley (retired) |