Bankr. L. Rep. P 68,272 Gail Spilman v. Darryl M. Harley

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “[i]f important issues were not actually litigated in the prior proceeding, as is the case with a default judgment, then collateral estoppel does not bar relitigation in bankruptcy court.”
• stating that “[i]f the important issues were not actually litigated in the prior proceeding, as in the ease with a default judgment, then eollater al estoppel does not bar relitigation in the bankruptcy court”
• noting that when state courts “de-cidle] facts not necessary to the state proceedings but only relevant to a possible future bankruptcy proceeding,” they are in effect “deciding issues directly concerning dischargeability, contrary to congressional intent”
• “[Determining [the dischargeability of the debts listed in §§ ] 523(a)(2), 523(a)(4) and 523(a)(6
• considering whether a bankruptcy judge must consider each question of dischargeability of a debt de novo or whether the parties are collaterally estopped by a prior judgment determining the nature of the debt
• overruled on other grounds by Bay Area Factors v. Calvert ( In re Calvert ), 105 F.3d 315 , 319 (6th Cir. 1997)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).