noncore matters). Accordingly, the validity of the district court’s decision, refusing to permit withdrawal, is inextricably tied to the bankruptcy judge’s earlier ruling that ESR’s claims constitute core bankruptcy proceedings. In such a situation, where reconsideration of a ruling material to an order provides grounds for reversal of the entire order, review of issues other than those certified by the district court as “controlling” is appropriate. See Ducre, 752 F.2d at 983 n. 16. Therefore, we review the bankruptcy court’s determination that the claims are core. IV. Core Determination In 1984, Congress amended the bankruptcy code in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 102 S.Ct. 2858, 73 L.Ed.2d 598 (1982) (<HOLDING>). The new structure is based upon the
holding that the bankruptcy courts as compared to state courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine issues of dischargeability under the bankruptcy code holding that the eleventh amendment does not bar a bankruptcy court from issuing a money judgment against a state under the bankruptcy code holding that congress jurisdictional grant to bankruptcy courts to hear proceedings related to a bankruptcy case suggests a grant of some breadth and includes inter alia suits between third parties which have an effect on the bankruptcy estate holding the broad jurisdictional grant given the bankruptcy courts under the 1978 bankruptcy act unconstitutional holding that the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over counterclaims asserted by the bankruptcy estate against a creditor where the claim is a state law action independent of the federal bankruptcy law and not necessarily resolvable by a ruling on the creditors proof of claim in the bankruptcy emphasis added