McClendon v. Springfield (In Re McClendon)

How courts have described this case

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

• applying the unitary standard and “defining a willful and malicious injury as one where there is either an objective substantial certainty of harm or a subjective motive to cause harm”
• argument ábout actions of Bankruptcy Court waived because debtor did not argue that, particular error of law before the District Court
• rejection of defendant’s testimony that he did not know defamatory statements were false necessarily supported conclusion that he did know
• under the law of this circuit, an issue that is not designated in the statement of issues filed pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 8006 is waived on appeal
• “[T]he Court finds that the bankruptcy court did not err by not individually determining which damages were non-dischargeable because it found that all of the damages were non-dischargeable.”
• not addressing the issue head on, but seemingly using a unitary standard and defining a willful and malicious injury as “one where there is either an objective substantial certainty of harm, or a subjective motive to cause harm” (internal quotation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).