In Chapter 7, funds administered by the trustee are intended for payment of pre-petition debt, not for post-petition child support, and should be distributed according to the priority structure of § 726, usually pro-rata among each priority level.

The debtor's claims for breach of contract and breach of warranty for real estate improvements against the construction company that built its Lincoln apartment complex were barred by the Nebraska statutes of limitation and statute of repose.

The court granted stay relief to the issuer of an excess liability insurance policy to the debtor to allow it to mediate with certain claimants. Turnover of proceeds of the primary policy, however, was premature pending appellate resolution.

Debtor is entitled to Nebraska homestead exemption because she maintains the residence as her home, although she works and lives in Colorado during the week

The court accepted the valuations of personal injury claims against the Chapter 11 debtor, as recommended by an independent attorney, for use only in the bankruptcy case for purposes of voting on a plan and calculating distributions under the plan.

Because the debtor agreed to pay medical malpractice insurance premiums as part of its employee-claimant's compensation, the claim falls within the Supreme Court's broad interpretation of "employee benefit plan" and has priority under § 507(a)(5)

Debtor's physical disabilities precluded employment of any type, so repayment of her student loan would impose an undue hardship upon her

The court denied a motion for stay pending appeal of a compromise settlement between debtor and its product liability and excess liability insurers. The movants, who claimed to also be insured under the policies, would not suffer irreparable harm.

An insurance premium finance company obtained relief from the stay for cause. Premium finance agreements are not covered by Revised U.C.C. Article 9, so a filed financing statement was not necessary to perfect the security interest in unearned premiums.

The debtor's objection to a claim was granted and the claim was disallowed because the documentary evidence overwhelmingly indicated the promissory notes at issue were not the obligation of the debtor, but rather of the debtor's general partner.