Patronite v. Beeney (In Re Beeney)

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the proposed litigation did not violate the discharge injunction because “allowing [creditor’s] suit to proceed merely leaves [debtor] in the position of a witness who would appear at trial”
• “allowing [the plaintiffs] suit to proceed merely leaves [the debtor] in the position of a witness who would appear at trial”
• \Subsection (e) makes clear that this injunction 8 applies only to the debtor's personal liability and does not 9 inhibit collection efforts against other entities.\
• “Subsection (a) enjoins creditors from attempting to collect from the debtor or the debtor’s assets debts that have been discharged in bankruptcy. Subsection (e
• action against discharged debtor needed to recover against debtor’s insurer did not violate the discharge injunction
• “[I]f the insurance company does not vigorously defend, and if [plaintiff] prevails, and if [defendant’s] insurance rates increase, and if [defendant] loses his hazardous materials license, then he might lose his job.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).