Skip to main content
N.D. Ohio· 6/24/1998

In Re Hill

Citations

  • 222 B.R. 119
  • 1998 Bankr. LEXIS 776
  • 32 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 995
  • 1998 WL 354209

How courts have described this case

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

  • suggesting that there are compelling reasons to interpret willful under section 362(h) differently than under section 523(a)(6)
  • finding that when debtor’s sole damages from stay violation are attorney’s fees, the court “should review those fees carefully to avoid the reality or the appearance that the court is rewarding an excessively litigious approach to such violations.”
  • noting minor stay violations “will inevitably occur and should, ideally, be resolved without litigation”
  • where the violation is relatively minor and the debtor’s sole damages are attorney’s fees, the court “should review those fees carefully to avoid the reality or appearance that the Court is rewarding an excessively litigious approach to such violations”
  • finding willfulness in case involving clerical error under § 524(a)(2)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: David F. Snow

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.