Arthur G. Muegler, Jr. v. David J. Bening Alfred W. Harre

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding the substantial ground for difference of opinion factor appropriately satisfied because of uncertainty and confusion in the applicable area of law due to a recent Supreme Court ruling
• rejecting argument that a debtor must have obtained some benefit from the fraud for a debt to be held nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A)
• finding of 16 fraud in previous action between same parties sufficient for non-discharge based on issue 17 preclusion
• collecting pre-Cohen cases applying the receipt-of-benefits requirement from the Ninth, Eleventh, and Fifth Circuits
• “[I]n light of Cohen [v. de la Cruz, 523 U.S. 213 (1998)], the receipt of a benefit is no longer an element of fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).