In re Braen

111 Citing cases

  1. In re Slomnicki

    243 B.R. 644 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2000)   Cited 12 times

    4 Collier on Bankruptcy ยถ 523.12[1] at 523-91; see also In re Braen, 900 F.2d 621, 626 n. 4 (3rd Cir. 1990) (using the same quotation from Collier in defining "malicious injury"); Phillippi, Bankr. No. 98-21819-MBM, Adv. No. 98-2256-MBM, at 6 (same); Slosberg, 225 B.R. at 21-22 CA showing of malice requires a showing that the debtor's willful, injurious conduct was undertaken without just cause or excuse"). The Court concludes that the Third Circuit's holding in Conte that an injury is deliberate or intentional if an actor acts with knowledge that there is substantial certainty that injury will result remains good law notwithstanding that it was decided prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kawaauhau.

  2. In re Graham

    973 F.2d 1089 (3d Cir. 1992)   Cited 198 times
    Holding that we exercise plenary review over the district court's retrospective application of a Supreme Court decision

    (1) the issue sought to be precluded [is] the same as that involved in the prior action; (2) that issue [was] actually litigated; (3) it [was] determined by a final and valid judgment; and (4) the determination [was] essential to the prior judgment. . . .In re Braen, 900 F.2d 621, 628-29 n. 5 (3d Cir. 1990) (quoting In re Ross, 602 F.2d 604, 608 (3d Cir. 1979) (quoting Haize v. Hanover Ins. Co., 536 F.2d 576, 579 (3d Cir. 1976))), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 782, 112 L.Ed.2d 845 (1991). Of these four elements, the parties contest only the presence of the second: whether the issue of fraud was actually litigated in the Tax Court proceeding.

  3. Rossi, McCreery & Assoc., Inc. v. Abbo (In re Abbo)

    192 B.R. 891 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1996)   Cited 6 times
    Giving collateral estoppel effect to an Ohio state court judgment on an abuse of process claim in a ยง 523 adversary proceeding

    Here, as in Laganella v. Braen (In re Braen), the Court finds that a state court judgment for malicious prosecution is entitled to collateral estoppel effect in an action under ยง 523(a)(6). Laganella v. Braen (In re Braen), 900 F.2d 621, 626-28 (3rd Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1066, 111 S.Ct. 782, 112 L.Ed.2d 845 (1991); see also York v. Shepherd (In re Shepherd), 56 B.R. 218, 219-20 (W.D.Va. 1985) (holding that debtor was collaterally estopped from contesting dischargeability of state court judgment for malicious prosecution); Hunnicutt v. Wellever (In re Wellever), 103 B.R. 856, 857-60 (Bankr.W.D.Mich. 1989) (holding that debtor was collaterally estopped from contesting dischargeability of state court judgment for malicious prosecution); Hardin v. Caldwell (In re Caldwell), 60 B.R. 214, 218-19 (Bankr.E.D.Tenn.

  4. Matter of Haining

    119 B.R. 460 (Bankr. D. Del. 1990)   Cited 55 times
    Finding that debtor's bald assertions that she lacked fraudulent intent could not alone defeat a summary judgment motion on issue of non-dischargeability pursuant to section 523

    In construing this section, the court must apply federal law. In re Braen, 900 F.2d 621, 626 n. 3 (3d Cir. 1990) ("The exceptions to the general rule of dischargeability are federal substantive law. . . ."); In re Liberati, 11 B.R. 54, 55 (Bankr.E.D.Pa. 1981).

  5. In re Conte

    33 F.3d 303 (3d Cir. 1994)   Cited 206 times
    Holding that jury's finding that Debtor acted with knowledge of a high probability of harm to his clients did not collaterally estop him from claiming that his actions did not constitute a willful and malicious injury

    One of the core requirements of issue preclusion under New Jersey law is that the issue sought to be precluded is the same as was litigated in the previous action. See In re Braen, 900 F.2d 621, 628 n. 5 (3d Cir. 1990). We conclude that the jury's finding on which the preclusion ruling was based, i.e., that Conte acted: (1) with knowledge that the Gautams faced a high probability of harm, and (2) with reckless indifference to the consequences, does not constitute a finding of "willful and malicious injury" within the meaning of ยง 523(a)(6).

  6. Grogan v. Garner

    498 U.S. 279 (1991)   Cited 9,108 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the standard of proof for the dischargeability exceptions in 11 U.S.C. ยง 523 is the ordinary preponderance-of-the-evidence standard"

    See In re Phillips, 804 F.2d 930, 932 (CA6 1986); In re Kimzey, 761 F.2d 421, 423-424 (CA7 1985); In re Black, 787 F.2d 503, 505 (CA10 1986); Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Rebhan, 842 F.2d 1257, 1262 (CA11 1988); In re Hunter, 780 F.2d 1577, 1579 (CA11 1986); In re Dougherty, 84 B.R. 653 (CA9 BAP 1988).In re Braen, 900 F.2d 621 (CA3 1990); Combs v. Richardson, 838 F.2d 112 (CA4 1988). I

  7. Ponzini v. Monroe Cnty.

    No. 17-2921 (3d Cir. Nov. 21, 2019)   Cited 17 times

    Auth, 21 F.3d 29, 33 (3d Cir. 1994) ("Absent an error of law, decisions as to proposed jury instructions are generally subject to review only for abuse of discretion."). In re Braen, 900 F.2d 621, 626 (3d Cir. 1990). When the mention of negligence per se is viewed in context with the instruction as a whole, we are satisfied that the Court never actually instructed the jury on negligence per se.

  8. In re Wilson

    116 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 1997)   Cited 171 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the bankruptcy court should have lifted the automatic stay to allow a litigant to pursue a state court appeal against the debtor

    This premise is incorrect as a matter of law. See Langanella v. Braen (In re Braen), 900 F.2d 621 (3d Cir. 1990). In Braen, as in the present case, the debtor was sued in New Jersey state court for malicious prosecution.

  9. In re Brown

    951 F.2d 564 (3d Cir. 1991)   Cited 254 times
    Holding that "[f]inality for purposes of issue preclusion is a more 'pliant' concept than it would be in other contexts," that "the effectiveness of issue preclusion . . . does not require the entry of a judgment, final in the sense of being appealable," and that "collateral estoppel applies whenever an action is sufficiently firm to be accorded conclusive effect"

    Observing that virtually every Court of Appeals had so held, the Court said, "[w]e now clarify that collateral estoppel principles do indeed apply in discharge exception proceedings pursuant to ยง 523(a)." Id. 111 S.Ct. at 658 n. 11; see also In re Braen, 900 F.2d 621, 630 (3d Cir. 1990). Rosemary Brown does not challenge this general principle, but contends that its invocation is limited to situations in which a final judgment has been entered in the state court.

  10. Waites v. Kirkbride Ctr.

    CIVIL ACTION No.: 10-cv-1487 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 30, 2012)   Cited 8 times

    "A court's review of a jury instruction should be undertaken with an eye towards the instructions in their totality and 'not a particular sentence or paragraph in isolation.'" Agere Sys., 2005 WL 2994702, at *2 (quoting In re Braen, 900 F.2d 621, 626 (3d Cir. 1990)). In addition to proving that the instruction was in error, the movant must show that the error was prejudicial (i.e., where "it 'appears to the court [that the error is] inconsistent with substantial justice'").