to determine the materiality of the breach. The Ninth .Circuit was the first to formulate that federal law defines the term executory contract, but that “the question of the legal consequences of one party’s failure to perform its remaining obligations under a contract is an issue of state contract law. While the principles of contract law do not differ greatly from one jurisdiction to another, to the extent they do, a bankruptcy court should determine whether one of the parties’ failure to perform would give rise to a ‘material breach’ excusing performance by the other party under the contract law applicable to the contract ...” Hall v. Perry (In re Cochise College Park, Inc.), 703 F.2d 1339, 1348 n. 4 (9th Cir.1983); see also In re Streets & Beard Farm Partnership, 882 F.2d at 235 (<HOLDING>); In re Terrell, 892 F.2d at 471-72 (6th
holding that the definition of assessed is a federal question not a state law question while maryland law establishes certain events with respect to the imposition of a tax federal law determines whether those events constitute an assessment holding that federal law determines definition of executory contract but that state law determines whether a material breach of the contract could occur holding that federal courts sitting in diversity should apply state law that determines the outcome of the case holding for  1983 actions that although state law determines the limitations period federal law determines when the claim arises holding that while state law determines the existence of a claim federal law determines when a claim arises for bankruptcy purposes