McAlister v. Slosberg (In Re Slosberg)

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 jury in state court had awarded the plaintiff damages for lost wages.
• citing, at n. 12, State of Texas v. Walker, 142 F.3d 813, 823-24 (5th Cir.1998); In re Kidd, 219 B.R. 278, 285 (Bankr.D.Mont.1998); In re Dziuk, 218 B.R. 485, 487 (Bankr.D.Minn.1998)
• describing the Geiger decision as “silent regarding the meaning of ‘malicious,’ although its redefinition of ‘willful’ incorporates much (at first blush some might say all) of what ‘malicious’ once meant in § 523(a)(6)’s context”
• stating if the actor knows that the consequences are certain, or substantially-certain, to result from his act, and “still goes ahead, he is treated by the law as if he had in fact desired to produce the result”
• explaining why issue but not claim preclusion applies in nondischargeability actions
• examining section 523(a)(6)’s requirement of malice in the wake of Geiger

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).