Turman v. Morales

holding that "the bankruptcy court should particularly examine its authority to order the sale [free and clear] if ... any bona fide dispute exists only between third parties." | holding that “the bankruptcy court should particularly examine its authority to order the sale [free and clear] if ... any bona fide dispute exists only between third parties.” | right to counsel of one’s choice is guaranteed by due process as well as sixth amendment | right to counsel of one's choice is guaranteed by due process as well as sixth amendment | the right to counsel of one’s choice is guaranteed by due process as well as the Sixth Amendment | the right to counsel of one's choice is guaranteed by due process as well as the Sixth Amendment | Court found that a state’s regulatory grain law directing receiver to operate or liquidate the debtor’s warehouse because of the debt- or’s insolvency did not fall within § 362(b)(4) | state regulation of grain storage transactions and grain warehouses related to the state's pecuniary interest in, and conflicted with, bankruptcy court's control over estate property and was not within the 362(b)(4) exception | action by state would have interfered with bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over debtors’ assets | debtors’ possession and mere 2.3% ownership of grain at issue held sufficient to constitute property of the estate so as to invoke jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1471(e), the predecessor to section 1334(d) | “It is axiomatic that in all criminal prosecutions the accused enjoys the right to have assistance of counsel for his defense, and implicit in this guarantee is the right to be represented by counsel of one’s own choice.” | defense counsel admitted “that he was not able to thoroughly investigate the background of the prosecutrix and did not interview several potential witnesses.... In light of these facts, the Court doubts that the 10 days or 14 days afforded here were adequate.” | bankruptcy court must make “final determination of property interest” | Miranda custodial interrogation analysis applied to juvenile proceeding