Chicago: United Has No Right to Ask Court to Nix Eviction

Shields, Yvette
May 2003
Bond Buyer;5/21/2003, Vol. 344 Issue 31640, p48
Trade Publication
The article presents an argument put forward by city lawyers of Chicago, Illinois, in court documents filed with U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Eugene Wedoff in response to airlines company United Airlines Inc.' request that the court issue a declaratory judgment preventing the city from evicting the airline. The argument holds that the airlines company has no grounds to ask the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to strip Chicago of its ability to evict it from its facilities at O' Hare International Airport in Chicago for failing to make payments on its special facilities revenue bonds— because the city hasn't threatened to take such action.


Related Articles

  • Bankruptcy Judge Deals United a Blow. Shields, Yvette // Bond Buyer;6/23/2003, Vol. 344 Issue 31662, p1 

    An U.S. federal bankruptcy court judge on Friday dismissed United Airlines Inc.'s request to declare unenforceable provisions in its lease agreements with Chicago, Illinois, that require the airline to repay its special facilities revenue bonds as a condition of its use of O' Hare International...

  • The collaborative development of power in children's arguments. Meyer, Jasna // Argumentation & Advocacy;Fall92, Vol. 29 Issue 2, p77 

    Investigates strategies preschoolers utilize in arguments to establish power and dominance. Subjects and procedures; Tape transcription; Episodes; Conflict involving possessions; Production of power.

  • Slippery Slope Arguments and Legal Reasoning. Lode, Eric // California Law Review;Dec99, Vol. 87 Issue 6, p1469 

    Analyzes the roles that slippery slope arguments (SSAs) can play in legal debates. Basic structure of SSA; Different forms that SSAs may take; Various contexts in which people invoke SSAs.

  • Hobson's choice.  // Reporter;Sep92, Vol. 19 Issue 3, p8 

    Presents information on the application of Thomas Hobson's principle regarding picking and choosing by trial advocates in their arguments to court members. Reference made to the case `United States versus Motsinger, 34 M.J. 255 (CMA 1992); Description of the arguments in the case; Detailed...

  • Before the Court.  // Supreme Court Debates;Apr2005, Vol. 8 Issue 4, p126 

    Presents excerpts from the arguments of Scott G. Bullock, attorney for Susette Kelo, et al, and Wesley W. Horton, attorney for the City of New London, et al.

  • Dos & Don'ts. Minsberg, Susan Dickel // Bench & Bar of Minnesota;Mar2011, Vol. 68 Issue 3, p48 

    The article offers suggestions regarding the things that should be taken care of by the lawyers during a trial such as not using inflammatory language during an argument, turning off the cellphone, and not interrupting the judge.

  • Positional Conflicts. Pitulla, Joanne // ABA Journal;Feb93, Vol. 79 Issue 2, p92 

    Addresses the practical aspect of lawyers arguing both side of an issue in two different cases. Factors that should be considered by lawyers before representing a case that involves defending the opposite side of a previously handled case; Steps that should be taken by lawyers to deal with...

  • `What did you mean by that?': The functions of perceptions in interpersonal argument. Legge, Nancy J. // Argumentation & Advocacy;Fall92, Vol. 29 Issue 2, p41 

    Focuses on the significance of perceptions in understanding interpersersonal arguments. Functions of perceptions; Perceptual agreement as stasis; Interpersonal disputes; Methodological issues.

  • The art of trial advocacy.  // Army Lawyer;Aug98, Issue 309, p47 

    Proposes a method for constructing rebuttal arguments. Preparation of the rebuttal as an integral part of the closing argument; Control of the agenda; Structuring the rebuttal for maximum effect; Effectiveness of concise, clear and brief rebuttals.


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics