See Ames Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. (In re Ames Dep’t Stores, Inc.), 542 B.R. 121, 137 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2015) (quoted material). In doing so, Congress recognized the bankruptcy court’s experience, and, more importantly, vested interest, in ruling in a manner that makes the bankruptcy system functional. As Whiting-Turner indicates, not all core matters implicate these concerns equally. However, these considerations are nonetheless important, and when placed on a scale, determinations regarding the automatic stay implicate them heavily. In re Merrill, 343 B.R. at 9 n. 10 (“[AJpplying and enforcing the stay (and related provisions) is [not] a simple exercise where a bankruptcy judge’s experience and training are not required.”); see also In re Cline, 282 B.R. at 695 (<HOLDING>); In re Rushing, 443 B.R. at 97 (“A bankruptcy
recognizing each individual bankruptcy courts unique interest in interpreting and enforcing stay in pending cases recognizing that each ditch system is unique and has individualized needs recognizing district courts authority to dispose of contempt action for violation of automatic stay of bankruptcy recognizing that any action taken in violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay is void and without effect holding dismissal is not precluded by bankruptcy stay