In theStern v.Marshall case discussed in the text,the U.S.Supreme Court addressed whether a counterclaim for tortuous interference with an expected gift,filed in response to a bankruptcy claim for defamation,was a core matter subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court.And if it was a core matter subject,did the authority conferred upon the bankruptcy court violate Article III of the U.S.Constitution? How did the Court rule?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the tortuous interference counterclaim was a core proceeding but that the bankruptcy court lacked the constitutional authority to enter a final judgment on the claim. The Court held that because the counterclaim did not arise under federal bankruptcy law and was not necessarily resolved in the claims allowance process, the bankruptcy court could only issue proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, with the final decision to be made by the district court. This ruling upheld the constitutionality of the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction while limiting its authority in certain cases.

In TheStern V