The case was argued by Janet C. Hall, now a federal judge in Connecticut, for the petitioner, and by bankruptcy trustee Thomas M. Germain for himself as respondent.

Thomas observed that "[r]edundancies across statutes are not unusual events in drafting, and so long as there is no "positive repugnancy" between two laws ... a court must give effect to both.

The opinion concluded that "[t]here is no reason to infer from either § 1292 or § 158(d) that Congress meant to limit appellate review of interlocutory orders in bankruptcy proceedings.

So long as a party to a proceeding or case in bankruptcy meets the conditions imposed by § 1292, a court of appeals may rely on that statute as a basis for jurisdiction.

"[1] Two Justices, John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor authored brief opinions "concurring in the judgment," meaning that they agreed with the outcome of the case but not with the reasoning of the majority.

Justice Stevens began his opinion by stating that "[w]henever there is some uncertainty about the meaning of a statute, it is prudent to examine its legislative history."