Kevin P. Gerard v. Michael J. Gerard

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a slander- of-title verdict did not preclude litigation over whether the underlying injury was “willful” under § 523(a)(6) because the jury instructions for the verdict required only negli- gence
• holding that a slander- of-title verdict did not preclude litigation over whether the underlying injury was “willful” under § 523(a)(6) because the jury instructions for the verdict required only negli- gence
• holding that a state-court jury verdict finding a debtor liable for slander of title without specifically finding that his conduct was intentional, not merely negligent, was not preclusive as to whether his conduct was “willful and malicious” for purposes of §523(a)(6
• assessing an estoppel argument by looking at the jury instructions and the verdict in the earlier case
• \ Horsfall teaches that one must act with the specific intent to cause a certain result in order to prove willfulness.\
• “one must act with the specific intent to cause a certain result in order to prove willfulness.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).