NON-ARTICLE III ADJUDICATION: BANKRUPTCY AND NONBANKRUPTCY, WITH AND WITHOUT LITIGANT CONSENT.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

The article focuses on the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif with the non-Article III adjudications. Topics discussed include Wellness's implications for the constitutionality of non-Article III bankruptcy adjudications, determination of constitutional basis for bankruptcy judges in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision Stern v. Marshall and limits of the adjudicatory powers of non- Article III referees.
Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)11-90
Number of pages80
JournalEmory Bankruptcy Developments Journal
Volume33
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jul 1 2016

Keywords

  • Wellness International Network Ltd. v. Sharif (Supreme Court case)
  • Bankruptcy jurisdiction
  • Bankruptcy
  • Bankruptcy -- United States
  • Stern v. Marshall (Supreme Court case)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'NON-ARTICLE III ADJUDICATION: BANKRUPTCY AND NONBANKRUPTCY, WITH AND WITHOUT LITIGANT CONSENT.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this