The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XXXIII
REGULATION OF TRADE, COMMERCE, INVESTMENTS, AND SOLICITATIONS

Chapter 507
HOUSEHOLD MOVING SERVICES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 507.02

507.02 Construction; intent; application.—

(1) This chapter shall be construed liberally to:

(a) Establish the law of this state governing the loading, transportation or shipment, unloading, and affiliated storage of household goods as part of household moves.

(b) Address household moving practices in this state in a manner that is not inconsistent with federal law governing consumer protection.

(2) This chapter applies to the operations of any mover or moving broker engaged in the intrastate transportation or shipment of household goods originating in this state and terminating in this state. This chapter does not apply to shipments contracted by the United States, the state, or any local government or political subdivision of the state.

(3) This chapter is intended to secure the satisfaction and confidence of shippers and members of the public when using a mover.

(4) This chapter does not supersede the authority or jurisdiction of any federal agency for goods or services regulated or controlled under other provisions of law.

History.—s. 2, ch. 2002-53; s. 4, ch. 2006-4.

F.S. 507.02 on Google Scholar

F.S. 507.02 on Casetext

Amendments to 507.02

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 507.02

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 507.02.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

IN RE H. LAFORCE,, 577 B.R. 908 (Bankr. S.D. Ala. 2017)

. . . priority and domestic support obligations were granted seventh priority.” 4-507 Collier on Bankruptcy P 507.02 . . .

IN RE CHAMBERLAIN,, 555 B.R. 14 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2016)

. . . create a listing of priorities for allocation of the insufficient funds. 4 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 507.02 . . . priority and domestic support obligations were granted seventh priority.” 4 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 507.02 . . .

IN RE J. GOODSPEED, A. v. f k a D., 535 B.R. 302 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2015)

. . . . § 507.02 (providing that, with certain exceptions, if an owner of a homestead is married, no conveyance . . .

IN RE ARGUBRIGHT, v. LLP,, 532 B.R. 888 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2015)

. . . statute is preempted by the Code and of no effect in the bankruptcy case.” 4 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 507.02 . . .

In LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS INC. v., 508 B.R. 283 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)

. . . .”); 4 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 507.02[b] (stating that administrative expenses are given priority “because . . .

HARTMAN, v. J. SMITH, a v. J. a, 734 F.3d 752 (8th Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 507.02, and Roger did not sign the quitclaim deed. . . .

OFOR, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC d b a U. S. N. A. MASTR, 649 F.3d 808 (8th Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 507.02) (alteration added in Bengston). . . .

J. LARSON, v. WELLS FARGO BANK N. A., 799 F. Supp. 2d 961 (D. Minn. 2011)

. . . . § 507.02 With exceptions which are not relevant in this case, Minn.Stat. § 507.02 provides that, “[ . . . Minn.Stat. § 507.02. . . . Thus, by application of Minn.Stat. § 507.02, the 2004 mortgage in favor of Wells Fargo is void. . . . . § 507.02. In Murphy v. . . . Accordingly, the Court finds that the requirements of Minn.Stat. § 507.02 are applicable to the case . . .

HAYES, v. TENNESSEE, 424 F. App'x 546 (6th Cir. 2011)

. . . the prison received the literature, Warden Jack Morgan (‘Warden”) rejected it pursuant to TDOC Policy 507.02 . . . The court granted Defendants’ renewed motion, finding TDOC Policy 507.02 constitutional both on its face . . . Hayes’s statement of the issue focuses exclusively on the fact that Defendants applied TDOC Policy 507.02 . . . The district court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion, finding TDOC 507.02 constitutional . . . And, as discussed, TDOC Policy 507.02 has been determined to serve legitimate penological interests. . . .

In GRIMLIE, A. v. v. A. A. v., 439 B.R. 710 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2010)

. . . Indeed, § 507.02, which restricts a spouse’s ability to convey the homestead, contains an exception based . . . Stat. § 507.02 (providing that, with certain exceptions, if an owner of a homestead is married, no conveyance . . . Minn.Stat. § 507.02 (expressly stating that a severance pursuant to § 500.19, subd. 5 is an exception . . .

In J. H. INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC. v. S. B. C. LLC,, 418 B.R. 413 (M.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . Patton, 358 B.R. at 915 (citing 3 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 507.02, p. 507-11 (15th ed.1992)). . . .

KARNITZ v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A., 572 F.3d 572 (8th Cir. 2009)

. . . declaration that the mortgage held by Wells Fargo on their residence is invalid under Minnesota Statute § 507.02 . . . Fargo that given the undisputed facts of this case, the Karnitzes should be estopped from relying on § 507.02 . . . The district court concluded that the unambiguous language of § 507.02 required Tanya’s signature on . . . With exceptions not here relevant, § 507.02 of the Minnesota Statutes provides: “If the owner is married . . . A conveyance under § 507.02 includes a mortgage. See Minn.Stat. § 507.01. . . . Bullock demonstrates that the defense of equitable estoppel in cases involving Minnesota Statute § 507.02 . . .

In COX v., 408 B.R. 407 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2009)

. . . . § 507.02. . Holmes, 403 B.R. at 641. . Id. at 642. . Id. at 646. . . . .

In T. HOLMES A. T. A. v., 403 B.R. 634 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2009)

. . . . § 507.02 provides, in pertinent part: If the owner is married, no conveyance of the homestead, except . . . Stat. § 507.02 and its predecessors provides for a simple and entirely logical consequence: A mortgage . . . Stat. § 507.02, even as the instrument referred to the named signatory as a "married person.” . . .

In W. DAWES C. v. J. W. C., 415 B.R. 815 (D. Kan. 2009)

. . . estate so as to generate proceeds to distribute to pre-existing creditors.” 8 Collier on Bankruptcy § 507.02 . . .

In KING,, 392 B.R. 62 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2008)

. . . . § 507(a)(1)(C); 4 CollieR on Baneruptcy ¶ 507.02 (15th ed. rev.2008). . . .

In ONEIDA LTD. v., 383 B.R. 29 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2008)

. . . (In re Delta Air Lines), 359 B.R. 454, 464 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2006), quoting 4 CollieR on Bankruptcy ¶ 507.02 . . .

In PLAZA, s, 363 B.R. 517 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2007)

. . . rules of superpriorities or subpriorities within any given priority class.” 3 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 507.02 . . .

In PATTON, s, 358 B.R. 911 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2007)

. . . rules of superpriorities or subpriorities within any given priority class.” 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 507.02 . . .

In DELTA AIR LINES, v. L., 359 B.R. 454 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006)

. . . , that statute is preempted by the more specific provisions in the Code.” 4 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 507.02 . . .

In Re MIDWAY AIRLINES, INC. v. L., 383 F.3d 663 (7th Cir. 2004)

. . . (citing 3 Collier on Bankruptcy para. 507.02[2] (15th ed.1985)). . 769 F.2d 1284 (7th Cir.1985). . . . .

In Re MIDWAY AIRLINES, INC. v. L., 383 F.3d 663 (7th Cir. 2004)

. . . (citing 3 Collier on Bankruptcy para. 507.02[2] (15th ed.1985)). . 769 F.2d 1284 (7th Cir.1985). . . . .

H. THOMPSON, v. CAMPBELL,, 81 F. App'x 563 (6th Cir. 2003)

. . . TDOC Policy No. 507.02(VP(C)(3). . . . TDOC Policy No. 507.02(VP(C)(3)(e) & (h). . . .

In BUSETTA- SILVIA,, 300 B.R. 543 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2003)

. . . King, Collier on Bankruptcy ¶507.02[2] (15th ed.1996)). . . .

In PREMIER OPERATIONS, NOVA v., 294 B.R. 213 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . See 4 Collier on Bankruptcy (“Collier ”) ¶ 507.02[1] (Lawrence P. King ed.2002), at 507-13. . . .

In KITTY HAWK, INC. AFL- CIO, v., 255 B.R. 428 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2000)

. . . .”); see also 4 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 507.02[3][a] (rev. 15th ed.2000) (“To the extent that a state . . .

In MICROVIDEO LEARNING SYSTEMS, v., 254 B.R. 90 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)

. . . King, et al., Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 507.02[2] (15th ed.1993)). . . .

In DEBBIE REYNOLDS HOTEL CASINO, INC. v., 238 B.R. 831 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1999)

. . . King, Collier on BANKRUPTCY ¶ 507.02[7]. . . . King, CollieR on BaNKruptcy ¶ 507.02[2] (15th ed.1996)), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 119 S.Ct. 404, 142 L.Ed . . .

In MICROVIDEO LEARNING SYSTEMS, INC., 232 B.R. 602 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1999)

. . . That course belongs to Congress.’ ” (quoting 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 507.02[3])); In re Daisy/Cadnetix . . .

In R. HERMANN, K., 224 B.R. 101 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1998)

. . . . § 507.02; see generally United States v. . . .

ADVENTURE RESOURCES, INCORPORATED, a a a a M. A. E. a a a a a No. a a a a X a a a a a a a a a H. D. a a a a No. a a v. H. HOLLAND, D. A. R. UMWA UMWA H. D. A. O. S. R. R. P. Of H. D. F. D. UMWA H. D. F. A. UMWA H. D. A. J. Ii, UMWA OF E. ADVENTURE RESOURCES, INCORPORATED, a A A a M. A. E. a No. a a a a a a a a X a a a a a a a a a H. D. a a a a No. a a v. H. HOLLAND, D. A. R. UMWA UMWA H. D. A. O. S. R. R. P. H. D. F. D. UMWA H. D. F. A. UMWA H. D. A. J. II, UMWA E., 137 F.3d 786 (4th Cir. 1998)

. . . KINGET AL., COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶507.02[2] (15th ed.1996), cited in In re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc., 22 . . .

. . . KINGET AL., COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 507.02[2] (15th ed.1996), cited in In re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc., . . .

UNITED STATES v. B. VICTOR, F. Of L. UNITED STATES v. L. BRUMBACK, 121 F.3d 1383 (10th Cir. 1997)

. . . See 4 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 507.02[l][a], p. 507-13; In re Reichert, 138 B.R. 522, 526 (Bankr. . . .

UNITED STATES v. B. VICTOR, F. Of L. UNITED STATES v. L. BRUMBACK, 121 F.3d 1383 (10th Cir. 1997)

. . . See 4 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 507.02[l][a], p. 507-18; In re Reichert, 138 B.R. 522, 526 (Bankr.W.D.Mich . . .

In J. FARRIS,, 205 B.R. 461 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1997)

. . . King et al., Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 507.02[1] (15th ed.1996). . . . Collier on Bankruptcy at ¶ 507.02[2]. . . .

In VALE,, 204 B.R. 716 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1996)

. . . Nana Daly’s Pub., Ltd., 67 B.R. 782, 787 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1986); see also, 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 507.02 . . .

In SENISE,, 202 B.R. 403 (Bankr. D.S.C. 1996)

. . . National Labor Relations Board, 344 U.S. 25, 73 S.Ct. 80, 97 L.Ed. 23 (1952); 3 Collier on Bankruptcy, ¶ 507.02 . . .

H. O HAGAN, v. UNITED STATES, 86 F.3d 776 (8th Cir. 1996)

. . . . § 507.02 that allows joint owners of homesteads to make “a severance of a joint tenancy pursuant to . . . Ann. § 507.02. . . . Section 507.02 was amended in 1979 specifically to allow such severances, perhaps partly in response . . . The first paragraph of § 507.02 allows unilateral severance; it is the second paragraph that requires . . . Plaintiff evidently believes (and perhaps the court does too) that § 507.02 merely confers on a joint . . . . § 507.02. Furthermore, Mr. . . . See Minn.Stat. § 507.02; see generally United States v. . . . See Minn.Stat. § 507.02. Mrs. . . . Hendrickson, 161 N.W.2d at 691 (citing Minn.Stat. §§ 507.02 & 525.145(1)). . . . Stat. § 500.19, subd. 4 (1996 Supp.); Minn.Stat. § 507.02. . . .

In TIMBERHOUSE POST AND BEAM, LTD., 196 B.R. 547 (Bankr. D. Mont. 1996)

. . . This is not a power given the courts by the 1978 Act. 3 Collier on Bankruptcy, ¶ 507.02 (15th ed. 1979 . . .

In LAZAR J. FEDER, v. LAZAR, In LAZAR J. FEDER, v. LAZAR, In LAZAR J. FEDER, v. LAZAR,, 83 F.3d 306 (9th Cir. 1996)

. . . re Nana Daly’s Pub., Ltd., 67 B.R. 782, 787 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1986); see also 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 507.02 . . .

In LAZAR J. FEDER, v. LAZAR, In LAZAR J. FEDER, v. LAZAR, In LAZAR J. FEDER, v. LAZAR,, 83 F.3d 306 (9th Cir. 1996)

. . . re Nana Daly’s Pub., Ltd., 67 B.R. 782, 787 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1986); see also 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶507.02 . . .

In OLGA COAL COMPANY,, 194 B.R. 741 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1996)

. . . King, 3 Collier On Bankruptcy 507.02[1] (15th ed. 1996). . . .

In COUNTY OF ORANGE, a COUNTY OF ORANGE, a M. W. v. MERRILL LYNCH CO. INC. a a a a a, 191 B.R. 1005 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1996)

. . . See, e.g., 3 Collier on Bankruptcy 11 507.02 (15th ed. 1995) ("State legislatures cannot create bankruptcy . . .

MARSHALL, v. R. MARSHALL, V. St., 921 F. Supp. 641 (D. Minn. 1995)

. . . . § 507.02 (“If the owner is married, no conveyance of the homestead, except ... a severance of a joint . . . Minnesota Statute section 507.02 is fundamentally different from the provisions considered in Herndon . . . Rather, section 507.02 alters the very nature of one spouse’s property right in the homestead. . . . In addition to wrongly claiming Minnesota Statute section 507.02 creates an unenforceable homestead “ . . . Moreover, at least one court has construed Sections 507.02 and 500.19, subdivision 5 to prohibit one . . .

In J. GOFFENA, L., 175 B.R. 386 (Bankr. D. Mont. 1994)

. . . subject to all liens and encumbrances existing when the petition is filed. 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 507.02 . . . See generally, 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 507.02(2). . . .

In RAYMAN, MARTIN FADER, INC. D. JORDAN, v. RAYMAN, MARTIN FADER, INC., 170 B.R. 286 (D. Md. 1994)

. . . King, et al., Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 507.02[2] (15th ed.1993)). . . .

In IONOSPHERE CLUBS, INC. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL v. R. SHUGRUE, Jr., 22 F.3d 403 (2d Cir. 1994)

. . . King, et al., Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 507.02[2] (15th ed. 1993); see Nathanson v. . . .

In IONOSPHERE CLUBS, INC. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL v. R. SHUGRUE, Jr., 22 F.3d 403 (2d Cir. 1994)

. . . King, et al., Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 507.02[2] (15th ed. 1993); see Nathanson v. . . .

In HLM CORPORATION,, 165 B.R. 38 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1994)

. . . Killoren, 119 F.2d 364 (8th Cir. 1941); Collier on Bankruptcy § 507.02[1] (1993). . . .

In CORON, INC., 161 B.R. 449 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1993)

. . . rules of superpriorities or subpriorities within any given priority class.” 3 Collier on Bankruptcy, § 507.02 . . .

In MILWAUKEE CHEESE WISCONSIN, INC. MILWAUKEE CHEESE WISCONSIN, INC. v. BUKOWSKI, A. La W. La a k a, 164 B.R. 297 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1993)

. . . See also 3 Collier on Bankruptcy, ¶ 507.02[1] (15th ed. 1993). . . .

EDENFIELD v. FANE, 507 U.S. 761 (U.S. 1993)

. . . Rules § 507.02(c) (1990); D. C. Mun. Reg., Tit. 17, §2513.4 (1990). . . .

In DALE, a k a J. R. a k a J. R., 152 B.R. 573 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1993)

. . . . §§ 507.02 and 525.145; (2) the spouse had interests created by his investment of non-marital funds . . . undivided interest in such property, as well as other spousal homestead interests under Minn.Stat. §§ 507.02 . . .

In SAYBROOK MANUFACTURING CO. INC. a k a a k a Ms. a k a Ex, a k a a k a a k a a k a C. J. SHAPIRO SHAPIRO, v. SAYBROOK MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. s s, 140 F.2d 1490 (11th Cir. 1992)

. . . courts may not create their own rules of superpriority within a single class. 3 Collier on Bankruptcy § 507.02 . . .

In SAYBROOK MANUFACTURING CO. INC. a k a a k a Ms. a k a Ex, a k a a k a a k a a k a C. J. SHAPIRO SHAPIRO, v. SAYBROOK MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. s s, 963 F.2d 1490 (11th Cir. 1992)

. . . courts may not create their own rules of superpriority within a single class. 3 Collier on Bankruptcy § 507.02 . . .

In A. PIERCE, STATE OF TEXAS v. A. PIERCE,, 935 F.2d 709 (5th Cir. 1991)

. . . See id. 11 507.02[2], at 507-11. . . .

In A. PIERCE, STATE OF TEXAS v. A. PIERCE,, 935 F.2d 709 (5th Cir. 1991)

. . . King, Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 507.02[1], at 507-9 (15th ed. 1991). . . . II 507.02[2], at 507-11. . . .

In N. P. MINING CO., 124 B.R. 846 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1990)

. . . administrative expense priority, we acknowledge that Congress alone fixes priorities. 3 Collier on Bankruptcy P 507.02 . . .

In R. EHRICH,, 110 B.R. 424 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1990)

. . . . §§ 507.02 and 524.2-201. . . .

In KASSON INC. U. S. A., 109 B.R. 352 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1989)

. . . Redford Roofing Co., Inc., 54 B.R. 254 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1985). 4 Collier on Bankruptcy (15th Ed.1989) § 507.02 . . .

In FCX, INC. ID, 96 B.R. 49 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 1989)

. . . King, Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 507.02, at 507-17 (15th ed. 1988). . . .

In TRI- COUNTY WATER ASSOCIATION, INC., 91 B.R. 547 (Bankr. D.S.D. 1988)

. . . See also, 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 507.02[2] (15th ed. 1988); 1 W. . . .

In DANT RUSSELL, INC. BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, v. DANT RUSSELL, INC., 853 F.2d 700 (9th Cir. 1988)

. . . administrative expense priority, we acknowledge that Congress alone fixes priorities. 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 507.02 . . .

In DANT RUSSELL, INC. BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, v. DANT RUSSELL, INC., 853 F.2d 700 (9th Cir. 1988)

. . . administrative expense priority, we acknowledge that Congress alone fixes priorities. 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶1 507.02 . . .

In GRANADA, INC., 88 B.R. 369 (Bankr. D. Utah 1988)

. . . Dieckhaus, 73 B.R. at 973. 3 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 507.02[3] observes that “it must be stressed that . . .

In DARNELL, UNITED STATES v. DARNELL, 834 F.2d 1263 (6th Cir. 1987)

. . . Collier on Bankruptcy if 507.02[2] (15th ed. 1985). . . .

In DARNELL, UNITED STATES v. DARNELL, 834 F.2d 1263 (6th Cir. 1987)

. . . Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 507.02[2] (15th ed. 1985). . . .

In A. BIGALK,, 75 B.R. 561 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1987)

. . . . § 507.02— he or she does not automatically do so for personal property. . . .

In CASCADE HYDRAULICS AND UTILITY SERVICE, INC. CENTRAL BANK OF MONTANA, a v. CASCADE HYDRAULICS AND UTILITY SERVICE, INC., 815 F.2d 546 (9th Cir. 1987)

. . . subject to all liens and encumbrances existing when the petition is filed. 3 Collier on Bankruptcy U 507.02 . . . See generally, 3 Collier on Bankruptcy H 507.02(2). . . .

In INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERS, INC. EXPORT- IMPORT SERVICES, INC. v. INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERS, INC., 812 F.2d 78 (2d Cir. 1987)

. . . claims by requiring that they be first paid before others are satisfied.” 3 Collier’s on Bankruptcy U 507.02 . . .

In CROPPER COMPANY, INC. M. FLATAU, v. F. JACKSON,, 63 B.R. 874 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1986)

. . . priorities, it must be stressed that priorities are fixed by Con-gress_" 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 507.02 . . .

In FOREMAN INDUSTRIES, INC. FOREMAN INDUSTRIES, INC. v. BROADWAY SAND GRAVEL,, 59 B.R. 145 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1986)

. . . legislation — an equitable distribution of the debtor’s assets to his creditors.” 3 Collier On Bankruptcy ¶ 507.02 . . .

In UNITED DEPARTMENT STORES, INC. In HUGHES HATCHER, INC. In OUTLET DEPARTMENT STORES, INC. In S. P. DUNHAM CO. INC. In ROTHSCHILD BROTHERS,, 49 B.R. 462 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1985)

. . . before the debtor’s estate is distributed to his other, nonpriority creditors. 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 507.02 . . .

M. BOYD, f k a v. G. ROBINSON,, 741 F.2d 1112 (8th Cir. 1984)

. . . . § 507.02 (West Supp.1984), a married owner may not convey a homestead without the signatures of both . . .

M. BOYD, f k a v. G. ROBINSON,, 741 F.2d 1112 (8th Cir. 1984)

. . . . § 507.02 (West Supp.1984), a married owner may not convey a homestead without the signatures of both . . .

In B W ENTERPRISES, INC. In SHOEMAKER TRUCKING CO. INC. B W ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GOODMAN OIL COMPANY Co. s Co. Co. Co., 713 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1983)

. . . This is not a power given the courts by the 1978 Act. 3 Collier on Bankruptcy If 507.02 (15th ed. 1979 . . . See 3 Collier on Bankruptcy If 507.02 (15th ed. 1979). . . .

In B W ENTERPRISES, INC. In SHOEMAKER TRUCKING CO. INC. B W ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GOODMAN OIL COMPANY Co. s Co. Co. Co., 713 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1983)

. . . This is not a power given the courts by the 1978 Act. 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 507.02 (15th ed. 1979 . . . See 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 507.02 (15th ed. 1979). . . .

NURSING HOME RESIDENTS ADVISORY COUNCIL, F. v. KELLY E. F. Jr. Jr., 470 F. Supp. 747 (D. Minn. 1979)

. . . . § 507.02. . . .

BAKER v. E. BINDNER,, 274 F. Supp. 658 (W.D. Ky. 1967)

. . . Likewise we declare unconstitutional the Louisville Disorderly Conduct Ordinance 507.02 reading as follows . . . : § 507.02 Disorderly Conduct. . . . An examination of Louisville Ordinance 507.02 can leave no doubt that it is broader than that condemned . . .