Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

In the Matter of Braniff Airways, Inc., Debtor. Braniff Airways, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, American Airlines, Inc., Intervenor-Appellant

In the Matter of Braniff Airways, Inc., Debtor. Braniff Airways, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., Am. Airlines, Inc., Intervenor-Appellant, 700 F.2d 214 (5th Cir. 1983)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1983-02-28
Topic
bankruptcy

PER CURIAM: We affirm the judgment of the District Court, essentially for the reasons stated in its memorandum opinion. We add, in particular, that we conclude that 28 United States Code §§ 1471(a) and (b) were not invalidated by the Marathon decision, 1 but if they were, nevertheless, the jurisdictional grant of 28 United States Code § 1334 remains effective during the transitional period. AFFIRMED. 1 . The Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipeline Co.,-U.S.-, 102 S.Ct. 2858, 73 L.Ed.2d 598 (1982).

Citator

Cited by
37 opinions
IN MATTER OF BRANIFF AIRWAYS, INC.,700 F.2d 214(5th Cir. 1983)
IN THE MATTER OF BRANIFF AIRWAYS, INC., ET AL., DEBTOR.
BRANIFF AIRWAYS, INC., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS
BOARD, DEFENDANT, AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., INTERVENOR-APPELLANT.
No. 83-1048.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
February 28, 1983.
Certiorari Denied May 23, 1983.
Page 215
Ronald S. Orr, David H. Kennedy, Los Angeles, Cal., Stephen L. Taylor, Dallas Fort Worth Airport, Tex., for intervenor-appellant.

Kent Kibbie, Fort Worth, Tex., for Bank of New York, etc.

David Bonderman, Washington, D.C., Daniel C. Stewart, Dallas, Tex., for Braniff.

Robert J. White, Los Angeles, Cal., for Pacific Southwest Airlines.

John R. Blinn, Stephen A. Goodwin, Fort Worth, Tex., for amicus curiae Secured Bank Lenders to Braniff Airways.

Eloise E. Davies, Civ. Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae U.S.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Before GEE, GARZA and POLITZ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] We affirm the judgment of the District Court, essentially for the reasons stated in its memorandum opinion. We add, in particular, that we conclude that 28 United States Code §§ 1471(a) and (b) were not invalidated by theMarathondecision,1but if they were, nevertheless, the jurisdictional grant of 28 United States Code § 1334 remains effective during the transitional period.

[2] AFFIRMED.
  1. TheNorthern Pipeline Construction Co. v. MarathonPipeline Co.,___ U.S. ___,102 S.Ct. 2858,73 L.Ed.2d 598(1982). ↩