Abstract
In order to provide a foundation for understanding the Court’s reasoning in Stern, Part II of this Comment briefly covers the history of bankruptcy in America. Section III explains how the Supreme Court of the United States’ holding in Stern v. Marshall16 has affected bankruptcy courts’ disposition of state law claims. Scholars’ interpretations of Stern range from understanding it as a narrow holding that will change little in bankruptcy, to questioning whether it foreshadows the Court holding the entire bankruptcy system is unconstitutional in a future case. Given the breadth of opinions that the decision supports, it is predictable that Stern has been interpreted differently by district and bankruptcy courts across the country. In order to aid practitioners, Part IV explains how bankruptcy courts are determining whether matters are core or non-core, when courts are finding consent, how courts are resolving state law claims, and rationalizing these decisions in light of Stern, and the historical background of bankruptcy law. Finally, in furtherance of the goal of helping practitioners navigate post-Stern waters, Part V concludes this Comment by summarizing jurisdictional splits between courts on these critical issues and the relevant historical arguments.
Recommended Citation
Michelle Wright,
From Stem to Stern: Navigating Bankruptcy Practice after Stern v. Marshall,
77 Mo. L. Rev.
(2012)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol77/iss4/6