Narrative Opinion Summary
In this appellate case, the debtor, following a personal injury judgment against him due to a traffic accident, sought to discharge the debt in bankruptcy. The creditor argued that the debt was non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(9) due to the debtor's intoxication at the time of the incident. The bankruptcy court determined that the debtor was indeed intoxicated, rendering the debt non-dischargeable. Upon appeal, the district court affirmed this decision. The appellate court reviewed the bankruptcy court's factual findings for clear error and found none, thus upholding the lower courts' rulings. The decision was made based on written briefs without oral argument, as requested by the parties. Although the order and judgment do not establish binding precedent, they are citable under specific conditions. The ruling ultimately affirmed the non-dischargeability of the debt, reinforcing the application of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(9) in cases involving debts arising from intoxicated conduct.
Legal Issues Addressed
Citation of Non-Precedential Orders and Judgmentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's order and judgment, although non-precedential, may be cited under specific conditions as per the court's general order.
Reasoning: The order and judgment, while not establishing binding precedent, may be cited under specific conditions outlined in the court's General Order from November 29, 1993.
Non-Dischargeability of Debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(9)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The bankruptcy court concluded that a personal injury judgment was non-dischargeable due to the debtor's intoxication at the time of the accident.
Reasoning: The bankruptcy court evaluated the evidence and concluded that Floyd was indeed intoxicated when the accident occurred, leading to the determination that the debt was non-dischargeable.
Standard of Review for Bankruptcy Court Findingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court reviewed the bankruptcy court's findings of fact for clear error and found no such error in its determinations.
Reasoning: The appellate court reviews the bankruptcy court's findings of fact for clear error and, after examining the briefs and record, finds no clear error in the bankruptcy court's determination regarding Floyd's intoxication.