Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitappellee
lawsuitappellee

Related Cases

In re Combustion Engineering, Inc., 391 F.3d 190, 43 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 271, Bankr. L. Rep. P 80,206
View Case »
CFIP Master Fund, Ltd. v. Citibank, N.A., 738 F.Supp.2d 450
View Case »
In re Baxley, 72 B.R. 195, 15 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 1059
View Case »
Bank of America Nat. Trust and Sav. Ass’n v. 203 North LaSalle Street Partnership, 524 U.S. 975, 119 S.Ct. 24 (Mem), 141 L.Ed.2d 785, 67 USLW 3155
View Case »
Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp., 493 F.2d 1076, 4 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,133
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re L & J Anaheim Associates, 993 F.2d 883, 1993 WL 159905 (Table)

Facts

The case involves loan agreements that were contested regarding their terms and the security interests they created. The appellee claimed a security interest in future general intangibles, specifically the proceeds from a lawsuit pending in California state court. The district court's order addressed these claims and the enforceability of the security interest.

The case involves loan agreements that were contested regarding their terms and the security interests they created.

Issue

Whether the loan agreements granted the appellee a security interest in future general intangibles, including the proceeds from a pending lawsuit.

Whether the loan agreements granted the appellee a security interest in future general intangibles, including the proceeds from a pending lawsuit.

Rule

The enforceability of security interests in future general intangibles is governed by applicable law.

The enforceability of security interests in future general intangibles is governed by applicable law.

Analysis

The court analyzed the loan agreements and determined that they indeed granted the appellee a security interest in the future general intangibles, including the lawsuit proceeds. The court referenced the district court's order, which provided the necessary legal framework for understanding the enforceability of such security interests.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission on the record and briefs and without oral argument.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's order, holding that the loan agreements granted the appellee a security interest in future general intangibles.

AFFIRMED.

Who won?

The appellee prevailed in the case because the court upheld the district court's interpretation of the loan agreements as granting a valid security interest.

The appellee prevailed in the case because the court upheld the district court's interpretation of the loan agreements as granting a valid security interest.

You must be