General Electric Capital Corp. v. Acosta (In Re Acosta)

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of a statement can satisfy the scienter element under § 523(a)(2)(A)
• noting that any argument not made in their initial briefing by the parties on appeal is abandoned
• requiring proof of common law fraud elements to establish nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A)
• recklessness “combined with the sheer magnitude of the resultant misrepresentation” may support an inference of an intent to deceive
• “As long as there are two permissible views of the evidence, we will not find the factfinder’s choice between competing views to be clearly erroneous.”
• “As long as there are two permissible views of the evidence, we will not find the factfinder’s choice between competing views to be clearly erroneous.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).