In re Cellular 101, Inc., 539 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2008)
    A party’s failure to timely inform the court of appeals of a settlement that it believes disposes of a pending appeal precludes the party from asserting the affirmative defense of settlement and release in a later proceeding.

In re Frye, 389 B.R. 87, 88 (9th Cir. BAP 2008)
    BAP did not have jurisdiction over a petition to certify a direct appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2).  Pursuant to Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 8007(b), “[t]he receipt by the appellate court of a copy of the notice of appeal and the assignment of a docket number does not, in bankruptcy appeals, constitute “docketing the appeal.”  That only occurs after notification that the record on appeal is complete.

In re Stasz, 387 B.R. 271 (9th Cir. BAP 2008)
    Contempt order was a final order, since it completely resolved a contested matter.

In re Hupp, 383 B.R. 476 (9th Cir. BAP 2008)
    Under Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 8001(e), an election to take an appeal to the district court may not include anything other than the election.

In re Ransom, 380 B.R. 809 (9th Cir. BAP 2007)
    BAP allows a direct appeal to the court of appeals, even though BAP issued a decision on debtor’s appeal, where that decision was interlocutory and all of the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2)(A) were met.

Suter v. Goedert, 504 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2007)
    Motion for stay pending appeal was not mooted by state supreme court’s dismissal of an appeal in the underlying suit.

In re Brown, 484 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2007)
    Minute order that reserved issue of Rule 11 sanctions for later disposition was not a final, appealable order.

In re Berman, 344 B.R. 612 (9th Cir. BAP 2006)
    Direct appeals provisions of BAPCPA do not apply to appeals arising from bankruptcy cases filed before BAPCPA’s effective date.

In re Thomas, 428 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2005)
    “Rule 8002(b) requires an amended notice of appeal when the bankruptcy court’s ruling on a postjudgment motion alters the judgment and the appellant wishes to challenge that alteration.”

In re Rains, 428 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2005)
    Bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement, even though the validity of the settlement was on appeal.

In re Beachport Entertainment, 396 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2005)
    BAP abused its discretion when it dismissed an appeal for failure to include a copy of the bankruptcy court’s decision and the answer to the complaint in the appellate record.

In re Silberkraus, 336 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2003)
    Bankruptcy court retained jurisdiction to publish its written findings of fact and conclusions of law if consistent with its oral findings.

In re Warrick, 278 B.R. 182 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2002)
    Delay of six days past the appeal deadline in moving for extension of time to file notice of appeal was not excuseable neglect, despite debtor's alleged lack of notice of order's entry.

In re Betacom of Phoenix, Inc., 250 B.R. 376 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2000)
    “In ruling on a motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal under Rule 8002(c) that is filed within the initial ten-day period, a bankruptcy court must consider the following four factors:
    1. whether the appellant is seeking the extension for a proper purpose;
    2. the likelihood that the need for an extension will be met if the motion is granted;
    3. the extent to which granting the extension would inconvenience the court and the     appellee or unduly delay the administration of the bankruptcy case;
    4. the extent to which the appellant would be harmed if the motion were denied.”

In re Lam, 192 F.3d 1309 (9th Cir. 1999)
    Bankruptcy creditor forfeits right to appeal from entry of default by not seeking relief in court where default was entered.

In re Arrowhead Estates Development Co, 42 F.3d 1306, (9th Cir. 1994), as amended March 23, 1995
    Appellants’ claims remanded for consideration on merits where notice of appal filed after bankruptcy court’s oral decision but before entry of formal order in docket

In re Delaney, 29 F.3d 516, 518 (9th Cir. 1994)
    Parties have an affirmative duty to ‘monitor the dockets to inform themselves of the entry of orders they may wish to appeal.’...In re Sweet Transfer & Storage, Inc. , 896 F.2d 1189, 1193 (9th Cir. 1990) (superseded by Rule as stated in In re Arrowhead Estates Development) lack of notice of an entry of an order is not a ground by itself to warrant finding an otherwise untimely appeal to be timely.  See B.R. 9022, Zurich Ins. Co. v. Wheeler, 838 F.2d 338, 340 (9th Cir. 1988).

In re Mouradick, 13 F.3d 326, 329  (9th Cir. 1994)
    Order of bankruptcy court extending time to file notices of appeal before the 10 day limit  in B.R. 8002(c) did not excuse appellant’s failure to file notices of appeal within the time stated in the rule.