Weidle Corp. v. Leist (In Re Leist)

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that debt for usurpation of corporate business opportunity was not an embezzlement debt because the governing Ohio law does not recognize a corporate business opportunity as identifiable, tangible personal property capable of being embezzled
• disagreeing with the interpretation of § 523(a)(6) in Livingston as inconsistent with the intent and language of the statutory provision
• “[Wjhile the court looks to federal bankruptcy law to determine whether an exception to discharge under § 523(a) has been met, the court must look to applicable substantive federal and state law to determine the existence and nature of interests in property”
• business opportunities are not “property” under Ohio conversion law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).