In Re Gary Lazar Divine Grace Lazar, Debtors, James J. Feder, Examiner Coopers & Lybrand v. Gary Lazar, and Snipper, Wainer & Markoff, in Re Gary Lazar Divine Grace Lazar, Debtors, James J. Feder, Examiner, and Coopers & Lybrand, Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Gary Lazar, and Snipper, Wainer & Markoff, Appellant-Cross-Appellee. In Re Gary Lazar Divine Grace Lazar, Debtors, James J. Feder, Examiner, Appellee-Cross-Appellant, and Coopers & Lybrand, Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Gary Lazar, and Snipper, Wainer & Markoff, Appellant-Cross-Appellee

Good Law
83 F.3d 306·96 Daily Journal DAR 5277·35 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1259·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 10419·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3198
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 7, 199694-55804California2,517 words

Opinion

Opinion

83 F.3d 306 64 USLW 2763 , 35 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 1259 , Bankr. L. Rep. P 76,967 , 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3198 , 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5277 In re Gary LAZAR; Divine Grace Lazar, Debtors, James J. FEDER, Examiner; Coopers & Lybrand, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Gary LAZAR, Defendant, and Snipper, Wainer & Markoff, Appellant. In re Gary LAZAR; Divine Grace Lazar, Debtors, James J. FEDER, Examiner, Plaintiff, and Coopers & Lybrand, Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. Gary LAZAR, Defendant, and Snipper, Wainer & Markoff, Appellant-Cross-Appellee. In re Gary LAZAR; Divine Grace Lazar, Debtors, James J. FEDER, Examiner, Appellee-Cross-Appellant, and Coopers & Lybrand, Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. Gary LAZAR, and Snipper, Wainer & Markoff, Appellant-Cross-Appellee. Nos. 94-55804, 94-55910 and 94-55912. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Jan. 8, 1996. Decided May 7, 1996. James J. Feder, Feder & Mills, Los Angeles, California, for cross-appellant. Lauren Diehl, Adams, Duque & Hazeltine, Los Angeles, California, for cross-appellant. Stephen J. Snipper, Snipper, Wainer & Markoff, Los Angeles, California, for…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.